W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2009

Review of the RDF based semantics document (CLOSE ACTION-316)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:46:39 +0200
Message-ID: <49D21EBF.6090606@w3.org>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Michael,

Here are my review notes on the RDF Based Semantics document. All of
them are editorial.

Note that I should still read through the proof of the correspondence
theorem, I presume, but I have to take a deep breath before doing that...:-)


Ivan

-------------


General editorial/English question: as a mathematician I am used to the
'iff' term. I wonder whether this is so universally known that it is not
even necessary to define what 'iff' means...

------------

Introduction, penultimate paragraph starting with "Significant effort":

"[OWL RDF-Compatible Semantics]. the OWL " -> "[OWL RDF-Compatible
Semantics]. The OWL"

----------

Section 4.1, paragraph starting with "Note that it..."

The text says:

"The definition of datatypes with facets in Section 4.1 does not suggest..."

but this _is_ section 4.1, so this is a self-reference...

---------

Section 4.1, paragraph starting with "Also note for..."

"Also note for a datatype d and a facet-value pair < F , v > in FS(d)
that the value" ->
"Also note that for a datatype d and a facet-value pair <F , v > in
FS(d) the value

----------

Section 4.1, paragraph staring with "In this document, it will always be
assumed from now"

The second paragraph seems to be superfluous, it repeats the same message...

-----------

Section 4.2, second paragraph (definition of I),

"provided that d is a datatype of D, I(u) = d, and" ->
"provided that d is a datatype of D, IS(u) = d, and"

Actually... I think a usual abuse of the syntax is to use the I(E)
formulation for an interpretation when this means, mathematically, is
IS(E) where 'IS' is the mapping defined in 'I'. As this shorthand is
used all over the place, it might be worth noting it here.


-----------

Section 5, second paragraph

"universe of the regarded OWL 2 Full interpretation" ->
"universe for the OWL 2 Full interpretation being considered"

(or something similar). The 'regarded OWL 2 Full interpretation' sounds
funny to me...

there is also part of the sentence that seems to be out of place and
probably unnecessary:


---------

Appendix 7, 3rd paragraph

"and which must further meet all the global syntactical restrictions on
OWL 2 DL ontologies that are specified in [OWL 2 Functional Specification]."

First of all, the link seems to be wrong, it currently links to
#ref-owl-2-rdf-mapping (and this is also true to the previous reference
in the text). Furthermore, it is probably worth to explicitly link and
refer to section 3 of the func spec, which collects all the dl specific
restrictions in one place.

Last paragraph in the same section

"...while the new entailment query keeps being semantically equivalent
to the original entailment query under the OWL 2 Direct Semantics."
->
"... and the new entailement query is semantically equivalent to the
original entailement query under the OWL 2 Direct Semantics"

----------------

Big example in the proof of the correspondence theorem:

"corresponds to a union class expression in A. Since the pair &lang G1 ,
G2 "

I am not sure which XML entity you wanted to put for &lang...


-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 13:47:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 31 March 2009 13:47:22 GMT