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

Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:07:16 +0100

Message-ID: <4875ED64.6030502@deri.org>

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:07:16 +0100

Message-ID: <4875ED64.6030502@deri.org>

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

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

ok, all fine with me now! From my side, we can go with SWC. Jos de Bruijn wrote: > Axel, > > Thanks for your comments. > I think the changes prompted by the comments fall in the category of > "fixing obvious errors", and so can still be considered for last call. > There were one (English) grammatical error, two notational errors > (Datatype versus DATATYPE and the repetition in the definition of I* in > the proof), and two small technical errors (meta-variables and the > reference to the wrong column in the table). > >> 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. > > ok > >> >> *) you use: pred:isDatatype. but pred:isNotDATATYPE ... capitalization! > > ok > >> >> *) Table embedding OWL DLP, row 10 onwards. You use two explicit >> variables ?x and ?y ... this doesn't work recursively, you need >> metavariables! > > You are right that in some cases we need meta-variables, but not > everywhere. Namely, in the translation of subclass statements we can > simply introduce a new variable, because the statement is translated to > a new rule. > >> >> 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." > > This is not necessary, because the statement is translated to a new rule. > >> >> analogously, in row 11: >> >> instead of "?x" write "?<i>x<i>" >> >> and add to the condition column: <i>x<i> is a variable name. > > Yes, here it is necessary. > >> >> row 12, 13, 14,15, 16: >> >> again, you need a metavariable for x. > > In 12 and 13 it is not necessary, but in the other rows it is > > By the way, I realize now that it probably makes sense to move down the > row 11 to below what is now a row 13 (it reads more natural) , but this > should be done after last call. > >> >> row 16: >> >> tr<sub>O</sub>(value<sub>i</sub>) >> should be >> tr(value<sub>i</sub>) >> or no? > > yes > >> >> 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? > > 12 and 13, no, the others, yes > >> >> >> *) 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 [...]" > > yes > >> >> *) 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. > > yes > >> >> 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. > > thanks for your confidence :-) > > > Jos > -- 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 Thursday, 10 July 2008 11:08:13 UTC

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