From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>

Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:24:56 +0100

Message-ID: <487548C8.6020803@deri.org>

To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org

CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>

Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:24:56 +0100

Message-ID: <487548C8.6020803@deri.org>

To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org

CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>

Sandro Hawke wrote: >> The RDF and OWL compatibility document is ready to be frozen for last call. > > Done, and linked from WG home page. > Moment, monent... I have some last comments, which are mainly editorial so, shouldn't be problematic, but should be considered: Section 8.2.3.2 *) "In the following, let T be the set of considered datatypes union the set of datatypes used in any ontology under consideration." this reads badly, better.. the word "union" is used as in a mathematical formula in natural language text, better write: "In the following, let T be the union of the set of considered datatypes with the set of datatypes used in any ontology under consideration. *) you use: pred:isDatatype. but pred:isNotDATATYPE ... capitalization! *) Table embedding OWL DLP, row 10 onwards. You use two explicit variables ?x and ?y ... this doesn't work recursively, you need metavariables! i.e. change: row 10, column 2: "trO(description1,description2,?x)" to trO(description1,description2, ?<i>x<sub>new</sub></i>) and add a to the condition column the remark: "where <i>x<sub>new</sub> is a "fresh" variable name not used anywhere else in the translation so far." analogously, in row 11: instead of "?x" write "?<i>x<i>" and add to the condition column: <i>x<i> is a variable name. row 12, 13, 14,15, 16: again, you need a metavariable for x. row 16: tr<sub>O</sub>(value<sub>i</sub>) should be tr(value<sub>i</sub>) or no? row 17: again meta-variable for ?x .. otherwise, i.e. if you don't use meta-variables, the other rules don't apply for tr<sub>O</sub>(description, ?y) you want rows 11-17 also apply recursively to ?y, or no? *) In the proof of the Normalized Combination Embedding Lemma, this looks strange to me: " I* = <TV, DTS, D*, D*ind union (union of the value spaces of all datatypes in the range of D), Dfunc, IC, IV, IF, Iframe', ISF, Isub, Iisa, I=, Iexternal, Itruth> is such that * D*ind=Dind union (union of the value spaces of all datatypes in the range of D) and * D*=D union D*ind " if "D*ind=Dind union (union of the value spaces of all datatypes in the range of D)" then why do you define in I* "D*ind union (union of the value spaces of all datatypes in the range of D)" this is superfluous, it seeems you can just write: "I* = <TV, DTS, D*, D*ind, Dfunc, IC, IV, IF, Iframe', ISF, Isub, Iisa, I=, Iexternal, Itruth> is such that [...]" *) Also in the proof further down, you talk about: "(cf. the right column of Table Normalizing OWL DLP)" This table has three, columns... you don't mean the right (condition) column, but the second (middle) column here, I strongly assume. Apart from that, all looks quite like an argument with a red line in the proof to me, although I didn't check back in detail with the OWL semantics here, I trust you. Good stuff, that's all from me so far on SWC. Axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres, Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/ Everything is possible: rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:Resource. rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf. rdf:type rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf. rdfs:subClassOf rdf:type owl:SymmetricProperty.Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 23:25:38 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:51 UTC
*