W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2009

review rdf:text

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:14:32 +0200
Message-ID: <49E1F748.8080800@inf.unibz.it>
To: "public-rdf-text@w3.org" <public-rdf-text@w3.org>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Herewith my review of the current version of rdf:text [1].

I have three substantive comments that I think should be implemented
before going to last call:

1- in the preliminaries: XML namespaces does not define a convention for
the abbreviating URIs.  Rather, you are using the convention of RDF for
abbreviating URIs.  In addition, the reference to XML namespace is
misleading, since in XML names are pairs (namespace, local name),
whereas in your document names are URIs.  Please refer to RDF when
discussing the URI abbreviation mechanism.  Then, I believe the `.'
after xpath-functions and rdf-text-functions should be replaced with a `#'.
2- section 3, definition of value space: I believe this is not a
sufficient definition.  So, I propose to replace "contains" with
"consists of"
3- definition of rtfn:compare: this function seems under-defined.  I
believe that if $collation is given, and is not of type xs:string, the
function should raise an error.  Then, it is undefined what happens if
both comparands do not have a language tag.  In particular, it is not
possible to determine whether their language tags are unequal, because
they're not there.

After these comments are addressed, the document can go to last call, as
far as I'm concerned.

I have a few more editorial comments:

4- Last paragraph of the introduction: the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype does
not have a feature called xml:lang.
5- section 5.1.1: why write "of type rdf:text" twice?  The function
simply returns these values, and clearly they are of type rdf:text.
6- in sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 I strongly suggest to replace "extract"
with "returns", to make the definition of the function more homogeneous
and because "extract" is not defined
7- the style specification of rtfn:compare is somewhat different from
the specification of the other functions.  In rtfn:compare English is
used to refer to different components of the input values, whereas in
the other specifications symbols (s,l) are being used.  I would suggest
to you symbols in section 5.2.1 as well.
8- in section 5.2.1, it is unclear what the mention "operators" are.  As
far as I know, RDF, RIF, and OWL 2 do not define any of the mentioned


+43 1 58801 18470        debruijn@inf.unibz.it

Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
Many would be cowards if they had courage
  - Thomas Fuller
Received on Sunday, 12 April 2009 14:15:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:55 UTC