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

[RIF] SWC comments

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:19:41 -0400
To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFB356032B.83D9C490-ON85257488.000484F9-85257488.005432D3@us.ibm.com>
Hi Jos,

A few comments on SWC,

Stella


Comments & questions:     
-----------------------------------
       Section 3: 
            blank node example at the end of the section
                   in the first derived triple, is it supposed to be _:x 
instead of _:y ?

                  should <http://a>[<http://p> -> "john"] be mentioned?

       Section 3.1.3
            para before the last definition:
                   that this not included -->
                   that are not included 
 
       Section 3.2.1.1
            last bulleted list:
                BLD makes it a point to say all the mappings are total. I 
don't know if
                it's important to include that here.

               4th bullet
                    function symbols in Const to D -->
                    function symbols in Const to Dfunc 

                    doesn't Ic map predicate symbols also?

       Section 3.2.1.2
            2nd & 4th conditions
                The frame mapping as defined in BLD takes the 'object'
                part as an argument and the frame mapping here takes
                the 'property' part as an argument?

                 This same comment applies to the 3rd & 4th items in
                  the 1st definition in section 4.2.2.2 and item 6 in 
4.2.2.3

           2nd para after conditions:
                RIF Document --> RIF document
                Similar --> Similarly
 
       Section 4
            6th para:
                 suggesting that correspondence -->
                 suggesting that a correspondence

            8th para (beginning "To ensure that"):
                 ...syntactical restrictions are imposed on the use of 
variables, function terms
                 and frame formulas
                 --> 
                 ...syntactical restrictions are imposed on the use of 
variables and function terms
                 in frame formulas   ?

       Section 4.2.2.1
             1st definition
                   holds that if -->   it holds that if

             3rd para after definition:
                    Iframe --> Iframe' 

       Section 4.2.2.3
             should the item be numbered 7?

       Section 5
            1st para:
                  and specify the -->
                  and specifying the

            4th para:
                  rdfs-entailment should be used -->
                  rdfs-entailment must be used -->

            5th para:
                  specify different profile -->
                  specify different profiles

       Section 5.2
            last para:
                 u1,...,un and C may --> 
                 u1,...,un, must                  ?



Wording suggestions:
----------------------------

       Section 3.1 
            1st para, last sentence:
                  -->  Finally, we review definitions related to datatypes 
and typed literals.

       Section 3.1.1
             para after 1st bulleted list:
                 --> In addition, there is an infinite set of blank nodes 
that is disjoint 
                       from the sets of names. See RDF....for a precise 
definition of these
                       concepts.

       Section 3.1.3
             4th para:
                  is the smallest set of datatypes that includes...  -->
                  is the union of...  ?

             following definition:
                   1st bullet:
                          The IRIs identifying all datatypes in T are in 
the domain of D -->
                          Every IRI identifying a datatype in T is in the 
domain of D 

       Section 4
            1st para:
                 Therefore, RIF-OWL-combinations are combinations of RIF 
documents
                 and sets of RDF graphs, analogous to RIF-RDF 
combinations.
                 -->
                Therefore, a RIF-OWL-combination consists of a RIF 
document and a
                 set of RDF graphs, analogous to a RIF-RDF combination.

            5th para:
                In the DL species, classes and properties are directly 
interpreted
                as subsets of, respectively binary relations over the 
domain 
                -->
                In the DL species, classes and properties are directly 
interpreted
                as subsets of and binary relations over the domain 
                    (it's pretty clear, and it's also spelled out more
                      explicitly in the next paragraph)

            last para:
                 what about making an end note on OWL 2 and moving the 
text there?

       Section 4.1.1
            2nd para:
                where P or A, respectively, occurs -->
                where P or A occurs

       Section 4.2.2.2
            para starting with "Recall that"
                   for interpreting, respectively literals (data values), 
-->
                   for interpreting, respectively, literals and data 
values,
 
       Section 4.2.2.3
            1st para:
                  the below definition may not be extensible towards OWL 2 
-->
                  the definition below may not extend to cover OWL 2

       Section 5
            1st para:
                  as pairs of documents and sets of RDF graphs/OWL 
ontologies -->
                  as pairs consisting of a RIF document and a set of RDF 
graphs/OWL ontologies

           5th para:
                  Profiles are assumed to be ordered -->
                  Profiles are ordered
                             or
                  Profiles have an order as defined later in this section.

                  In case several graphs are imported in a document-->
                  If several graphs are imported into a document

       Section 5.1
            1st para
                 If you think of the receiver and interpreter as a 
computer program, you
                 could say "its" instead of "his or her"
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 15:20:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:52 GMT