W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

[TF-ENT] Review of the Entailment regime document, 2009-12

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:48:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4B2B6BF2.1000202@w3.org>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Birte, all

here are my review comments on the document. All in all, none of the
comments seem to constitute a show-stopper in my view, ie, with those
changes done, I think the document is read to be published. Actually, my
comments on section 2.5 may require more work but, if those are
postponed for the next release, it is fine with me to publish without
that change.

Ivan


(Slightly more) substantial:

Abstract, last sentence
-----------------------

I would actually drop the "Time permitting," at the beginning. On the
one hand, it is clearly the case that those will happen:-) and I suspect
that this document would not be accepted for final publication without
those items anyway...

Section 1.1.3, triple patterns are defined by:
----------------------------------------------

(RDF-T union V) x (I union V) x (RDF-T union V),

but 'I' is not defined in the sequel. I presume you mean IRI-s (as
defined in 12.1.1 of the original SPARQL doc)

Editorial note at the end of 2.2.1
----------------------------------

I regard editorial notes as places where we, essentially, put
alternatives and let the community react if those alternatives are
considered to be better. However, most of this editorial note (up until
"A consequence of not requiring...") is more an
informative/clarification note on the current definition. I think it is
valuable for the reader and I would consider moving that into the main
text as an informative section.

Section 2.5, definition of Direct Semantics entailment, point 3.a
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I presume the usage of sk(O(SG)) here is necessary for the _:y case
described in the preliminary text. If so, then sk has to be defined in
the sequel, to make the definition of the entailment regime's condition
self-contained.

Section 2.5 generally
---------------------

This is not a trivial editorial issue, hence I put it here. In the
RDF(S) cases the text carefully took the restrictions (C1) and (C2) and
gave examples with a clear reference to the restrictions and showing why
they were there. And that is fine. I think the issues and descriptions
for 2.5 should follow the same structure to make the text more readable
(Which does not exclude having additional info, of course.)

For example, the first part of section 2.5.2, referring to top property
is not, as far as I could see, referring to any of the restriction in
the entailment definition but rather to a restriction defined by OWL 2.
On the other hand, the second half of the same section describes (I
guess) 3.b. Ie, this should be editorially separated in my view. 2.5.3
refers to restrictions 1.

I see no explanation/example for 3.c and 3.d. I must also admit that I
do not understand the necessity of 3.d. I thought that non-logical
axioms are, sort of, comments for the direct semantics, so why asking
for a structurally equivalent axiom? What does that mean?

General comment
---------------

I would put, somewhere, an editorial note that the WG is looking to
describe available entailment regimes in terms of service descriptions,
and that this may also involve giving a reference to EL and QL. Getting
comments from the community for that would be good...

=================================================

Editorial:

Abstract, 1st paragraph:
------------------------
"What correct answers to a SPARQL query are"
->
"What the correct answers to a SPARQL query are"


"The first version of SPARQL [SPARQL/Query 1.0] was defined only for
simple entailment, but it defines"
->
"The first version of SPARQL [SPARQL/Query 1.0] was defined only for
simple entailment, but it defined"


"The goal of this document is to specify conditions such that SPARQL can
be used with entailment regimes other than simple entailment."
->
"The goal of this document is to specify conditions such that SPARQL can
be used with some other entailment regimes beyond simple entailment."

(for the latter: the original sentence suggests that this document
defines how to use sparql with _any_ entailment regimes, which not the case)


Introduction, 1st paragraph
---------------------------

"In this document, we specify how SPARQL can be used with entailment
regimes other than simple entailment."
->
"In this document, we specify how SPARQL can be used with some other
entailment regimes beyond simple entailment."

(same issue as above...)

Introduction, bulleted list of references
-----------------------------------------

I am not 100% about that, but I wonder whether it is not better to list
the 1.1 documents for all items, rather than a mixture of the two...
(realizing, however, that the current 1.1 draft does not contain yet the
parts from the old SPARQL...) An alternative is to make this issue
explicit. I just want to avoid misunderstandings that this draft is not
relevant to SPARQL Query 1.1...

Section 1.2, paragraph after the SELECT example
-----------------------------------------------

varaibles -> variables

Section 1.3, first sentence
---------------------------

"...matching to other entailment regimes and SPARQL 1.0 says:"
suggest removing "and SPARQL 1.0 says:"

Section 2.1.1, penultimate paragraph
------------------------------------

"...sk(G) C1 is satisfied" -> "...sk(G), C1 is satisfied"

Section 2.1.2, first paragraph
------------------------------

"The following example illustrates mainly the use of condition C2."
->
"The following example mainly illustrates the use of condition C2."

Section 2.2, first paragraph
----------------------------

inconsistet  -> inconsistent

Section 2.5.2,  ultimate paragraph
----------------------------------

are return -> are returned

Section 2.5.4.2, first paragraph
--------------------------------

annotaated -> annotated

Section 2.5.4.2, last paragraph
-------------------------------

"Apart from the annotations and annotation axioms itself"
->
"Apart from the annotations and annotation axioms themselves"


Section 2.5.5, first paragraph
------------------------------

Smeantics -> Semantics

Appendix, CVS history
---------------------

Empty? That looks odd. Either you do not use CVS comments (in which case
it is fine to remove this appendix) or fill it with meat:-)




-- 

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 Friday, 18 December 2009 11:48:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT