W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Comments on the 2/19 SWC doc (mostly proofreading type)

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:18:11 -0500
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD8688D53.B26777C9-ON852573F9.000843C9-852573F9.00800218@us.ibm.com>
Abstract:
-------------
     what about replacing "compatibility" with "interoperation" in the 
text of 
     the abstract (or overview) - to give a sense of what is meant by 
compatibility
     in this context. (I'm not suggesting replacing it everywhere).


1.0 Overview
-----------------
     The main motivating scenario for interchange of RIF-RDF combinations
     is given as between two RDF-aware rule systems. In terms of RIF's
     purpose, it seems that interchange between an RDF aware and a non 
     RDF aware system is just as typical/valid of a target? Aware-non 
aware
     interchange is mentioned later, but it seems like it's presented as 
kind of a
     special case.

     1st para:
         of (logical) rules --> of logical rules

     4th para:
          rule sets explicitly points -->  rule set explicitly points 

     5th para:
          it allows to use RDF data --> it supports the use of RDF data

     7th para:
          The consumers of rules retrieves the OWL -->
           A consumer of rules retrieves the OWL

      8th para:
           With "interaction" --> By "interaction"

      9th para:
           4 --> four (twice)


2.0 RDF Compatibility
-----------------------------
      uncle example, last word in para:
           marry --> mary 

      last para:
           Combinations are pairs of RIF rule sets and sets of RDF graphs 
-->
           A combination contains zero or one RIF rule set and any number 
of
           RDF graphs.

2.1.2
------
      3rd para:
           as long as the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype is considered -->
           as long as the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype is included in the map.

           the following datatypes to be considered -->
           the following datatypes to be included

           The list of BLD-required xsd datatypes doesn't match BLD's 
current list

      5th para:
            notions of well-formed and ill-formed symbols in RIF -->
            notions of well-formed and ill-formed terms and formulas in 
RIF   ?
 
      6th para:
            add an "or" at the end of condition 1

2.2
----
     2nd para:
          4 --> four

2.2.1
-------
    1st para:
        definitions satisfaction and entailment -->
        definitions of satisfaction and entailment

     2nd para:
          between RIF semantic structures and RDF interpretations -->
          between RIF semantic structures (interpretations) and RDF 
interpretations 


2.2.1.1
---------
     3rd para (before 3rd bulleted list)
           We restrict our attention here to DTS, D, Ic, Iv and Islot -->
           We restrict our attention here to DTS, D, Ic, Iv, Iframe, Iisa 
and Isub 

          bulleted list:
              4th & 5th bullets are slightly out of sync with current BLD 
where Iv maps
              to Dind and Iframe maps to D X D -> D

             add bullets for Iisa and Isub
 

2.2.1.2
---------
     1st para (list of conditions):
          condition 1 
               isn't it redundant because it would have to be true if 
               condition 3 is true?

         condition 4
               is a subset of IR and a superset of -->
               is a superset of 
                   (because the subset requirement is part of the 
definition of RDF interpretation) 

         condition 5
                the set of all pairs (a,b), with a,b in D such that 
Islot(k)(a,b)=t for every k in D -->
                the set of all pairs (a,b), with a, b, k in D such that 
Iframe(k)(a,b)=t


      2nd para:
            Condition 2 ensures that the set of properties --> 
            Condition 2 ensures that the set of RDF properties --> 

             Finally, condition 7 ensures -->
             Condition 7 ensures

             Condition 8 the ensures -->
             Condition 8 ensures

             Condition 9 the ensures -->
             Finally, condition 9 ensures

      4th para:
             This combination allows to derive -->
             This combination allows the derivation of


2.2.2
------
     1st para:
          for all 4 entailment regimes -->
          for all four entailment regimes
 
          Talks about I satisfying R, but the term "satisfy" (-tion, 
ability) is no longer 
          defined or used in the FLD and BLD documents.  Same comment on
          the 3rd paragraph in section 2.0. 
 

3.0 OWL compatibility
-----------------------------
   Since OWL-DL and OWL-Full have different semantics, why is it 
   considered undesirable that different RIF constructs, each with
   the appropriate semantics, (the uncle example in 3.3.2) be used 
   to express rules under those two schemes?

3.2
----
   1st para:
       Since RDF graphs and OWL Full ontologies cannot be distinguished, 
we 
       use the notion of RIF-RDF combinations for the syntax of 
combinations
       of RIF rule sets with OWL Full ontologies
       -->
       Since RDF graphs and OWL Full ontologies cannot be distinguished, 
       we use the same syntax for RIF-OWL Full combinations as for
       RIF-RDF combinations

       restrictions on the syntax of the rules -->
       restrictions on the syntax of the RIF rules

  2nd definition:
       of a vocabulary V --> with a vocabulary V


3.3
----
   2nd para:
      cannot straightforwardly extends the -->
      cannot straightforwardly extend the

3.3.2
-------
   2nd para:
      It is now the case that elementary class... --> Elementary class...

      depending on whether they are used in OWL DL and OWL Full -->
      depending on whether they are used in OWL DL or OWL Full

       hasUncle(?x,?y) --> hasUncle(?x,?z)

       ?x[hasUncle -> ?y] --> ?x[hasUncle -> ?z]


3.3.2.2
---------
     It would be good to briefly review OWL-DL interpretations here, like 
it
     is done for RDF interpretations in section 2.2.1.1

    1st definition:
         The symbol D used in 2 different ways here? (as the datatype map 
and as 
          the domain of the RIF interpretation.)

         condtions 3 & 4:   there's no Ir mapping in a RIF interpretation

    last definition:
         every OWL DL model of C satisfies S -->
         every OWL DL model of C satisfies O 
 

3.3.2.3
---------
    definition:
        Ir isn't part of a RIFinterpretation


5.0 Appendix
-----------------
    2nd para:
         For the embedding we use the concrete syntax of RIF -->
         For the embedding we use the presenation syntax of RIF

5.1
----
   table:
       2nd row has some formatting problems (<em><td>)

5.2
----
   3rd para:
      function sk takes as arguments a formula -->
      function sk takes as an argument a formula

5.4
----
   1st para:
       The embeddings of RDF and RDFS entailment -->
       The embeddings of RDF and RDFS graphs              ?

5.5
----
   table:
        3rd row, 3rd column has a formatting problem  (<tt>)

5.6
----
   7th forall is missing "?" off a few variables


All sections
---------------
   Since RIF is pronounced beginning with a consonant sound,  "an RIF"
   should "a RIF."


-Stella
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2008 23:18:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:45 GMT