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

SWC review part 4 (final part) - (Re: RDF and owl compatibility document ready to be frozen)

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>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:50 GMT