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

Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 00:12:31 +0100

Message-ID: <4A1099DF.7060706@deri.org>

To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 00:12:31 +0100

Message-ID: <4A1099DF.7060706@deri.org>

To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

attached my review for SWC. I still need to review the informative Appendix (hopefully by tomorrow), but since I promised to send my review by today, I think it is better to split this in two parts. best, Axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/ Section 1: ========== * "The Rule Interchange Format (RIF) is a format for interchanging logical rules over the Web." remove "locigal" or refer to BLD/FLD only. * "however, for exchange purposes you assume they are represented using RDF graphs. " you assume->we assume * "A consumer of the rules retrieves the OWL ontology and translates the ontology and document into a combined ontology+rules description in its own rule extension of OWL." It is a bit unfortunate that this import in only unidirectional. It may be worthewhile (though maybe too late) to ask the OWL WG whether they would consider a simlar import mechanism on their side for RIF rules. This way they could e.g. refer to DL-safe RIF rulesets from OWL ontologies. I didn't check the OWL documents yet, but the ycould simply accomodate for this by referring to SWC. * Simple, RDF, RDFS, and Datatype. -> Simple, RDF, RDFS, and Datatype entailment. * "specifying the context of this import," shouldn't this be "specifying the profile of this import," * "The following namespace prefixes are used throughout this document: ex refers to the example namespace http://example.org/example#, xs refers to the XML schema namespace http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#, [...]" We probably don't want to speak about "the XML schema namespace" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# because only the non-hash version of this URI is the actual XML namespace in the sense of XML Namespaces. If we just change "refers to the XML Schema namespace" to "refers to" we should be fine. Alternatively, we have to clarify our terminology. Section 2: ========== * "2 Symbols in RIF Versus RDF/OWL (Informative)" I wouldn't capitalize "versus" even in a heading. Section 3: ========== * "Note that, even when considering *Simple entailment*" Optional: Wouldn't it make sense for the convenience of the reader to link each mention of an entailment relation with its resp. definition in the RDF aand OWL documents? * "For example, the RIF BLD document consisting of the fact "a"="b" " Note that equality in facts is AT RISK in BLD, and therefore this example as well. * "containing types literals" --> "containing typed literals" * "One consequence of the difference of the alphabets of RDF in RIF" --> "One consequence of the difference of the alphabets of RDF and RIF" * "These entailments are sanctioned by the semantics of plain literals and xs:strings." -> "These entailments are sanctioned by the semantics of plain literals and <tt>xs:string</tt>s." Section 3.1 =========== * Section 3.1.2 "A RIF-RDF combination consists of a RIF document and zero or more RDF graphs" Why do we allow only 1 RIF dcoument and arbitrary RDF graphs in a combination? * Section 3.1.3. "Definition. Let T be a set of datatypes." I suggest to use DTS for sets of datatypes instead of T, compliant with other defintions speaking aboutsets of datatypes. Section 3.2 =========== * 3.2.1.1 * Section: 3.2.1.3 * "I is a semantic multi-structure [...] " weren't muli-structures denoted by \hat{I} in BLD/FLD? I suggest in order to use consistent notation, you use \hat{I} to denote the whole multi-structure, whereas you use I to denote the common part only: "Given a semantic multi-structure \hat{I}={I1, ..., In}, we use the symbol I to denote the common part of the individual structures I1, ..., In. In the following, we will - slightly simplifying - also refer to I as a multi-structure, meaning only this common part of \hat{I}." Would that make sense? BTW: Why do we need multi-structures, if a combination has always exactly one RDF graph? * Conditions 4,6,7,8 in the definition in Section 3.2.1.3 enforce some "parts of" D-entailment, i.e. somewhat "D minus RDFS", right? E.g. let S1= {{ :s :p "foo" }}, S2= {{ :s :p "foo"^^xs:string }} and R be an emtpy ruleset. That mean that <R,S1> |=_simple <R,S2> Likewise, given S3= {{ :s :p "blabla"^^xs:integer }} would <S3,R> |=_simple <S,R> , where S is an arbitrary graph, i.e. is any combination with a graph containing an ill-typed literal inconsistent? This means that simple entailment in combination with an empty ruleset is not the same as simple entailment in RDF... I think that should be pointed out explicitly. It would be also worthwhile to add this example, i.e. I suggest to add (at the end of Section 3.2.3): "Note that simple entailment in combination with an empty ruleset is not the same as simple entailment in RDF, since certain entailments regarding datatypes are enforced by the RIF-BLD semantics in combinations. For instance, given two graphs G1= { :s :p "foo" .} and G2= { :s :p "foo"^^xs:string } as well as an empty RIF document R. G1 |=/=_simpleRDF G2 following [http://link-to-rdf-mt-simple-entailment RDF simple entailment] , but <R,{G1}> |=_simple <R,{G2}> " * Section 3.2.2 "Definition. Let (I, I) be a model of a combination C and let D be a datatype map conforming with the set of datatypes in I" -for clarification-> "Definition. Let (I, I) be a model of a combination C and let D be a datatype map conforming with the set DTS of datatypes in I." Section 4: ========== * "Since RIF frame formulas are interpreted using an extension function, as in RDF, defining the correspondence between them and OWL 2 DL statements would change the semantics of OWL statements, even if the RIF document were empty." Remark: As mentioned before, I think change of the semantics in combination with an empty ruleset is already the case in RDF, not sure whether you mean the same here. * "It is, however, also desirable that there be uniform syntax for the RIF component of both OWL 2 DL and RDF/OWL 2 Full combinations, because one may not know at the time of constructing the rules which type of inference will be used." --> "It is, however, also desirable that there be uniform syntax for the RIF component of both RIF-OWL 2 DL and RIF-RDF/OWL 2 Full combinations, because one may not know at the time of constructing the rules which type of inference will be used." * "the interpretation of frame formulas s[p -> o] in the RIF-OWL DL combinations [...]" --> "the interpretation of frame formulas s[p -> o] in RIF-OWL DL combinations [...]" * "A combination consists of a RIF document and a set of OWL ontologies." Again, I see no reason why not to define semantics in terms of sets of RIF documents. * "which are pairs of RIF and OWL 2 DL, respectively OWL 2 Full interpretations." --> "which are pairs of RIF semantic (multi-)structures and OWL 2 DL, respectively OWL 2 Full interpretations." * Section 4.1.1 "Given a set of OWL 2 DL ontologies O, a variable ?x in a RIF rule Q H :- B is DL-safe if it occurs in an atomic formula in B that is not of the form s[P -> o] or s[rdf:type -> A], where P or A occurs in one of the ontologies in O." That doesn't seem to be sufficient, take: ?X [rdf:type -> d ] :- Or ( ?X [rdf:type -> c ] p(?X) ) this is DL-safe according to the definition above but can be expanded to two rule one of which wouldn't be DL-safe. Rather, we need to adopt a safeness notion similar to Core. * Section 4.1.2 "We note here that the definitions of datatype and datatype map in the OWL 2 direct semantics specification OWL2-Semantics ... " -add brackets around reference-> "We note here that the definitions of datatype and datatype map in the OWL 2 direct semantics specification [OWL2-Semantics] ..." same here: "The definitions of datatype and datatype map we use are isomorphic, and, indeed, the same as in the OWL 2 RDF-based semantics specification OWL2-RDF-Based-Semantics." * Section 4.2.1 There is one peculiar thing which I am wondering about: since we talk about generalized RDF graphs in combinations and in the definition of entailment, does that mean that generalized RDF graphs could be entailed by non-generalized ones? particularly: G1 = :s :p :o G2= :o [] :p. Would: <R,{G1}> |= <R,{G2}> ? * Section 4.2.2.1 * Definition (dl-semantic multi-structure): "I<sub>1C</sub>, ..., I<sub>1C</sub>" looks weird, better use 1...n as superscripts as in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#def-bld-semantic-multistruct Again, shouldn't we use \hat{I} rather than I for multi-structures as in BLD to be consistent? * same definition: Bullet 1 ends with "and ; " That looks incomplete, is there anything missing? * "I(φ), for any other formula or symbol φ, and the truth valuation function TValI are defined as in BLD semantic structures. " I am, honestly, getting confused with the definitions of multi-structures in BLD vs. SWC. dl-multistructures consist of {I_1, ..., I_n} whereas BLD multistructures are {J,I; I_i1, I_i2, ...} so, I am unsure what "defined as in BLD semantic structures." means to say. (BTW: I sent an amendment to my BLD review per mail in this regard as well) * Definition common-RIF-OWL DL-interpretation: "(IR union LV) is D<sub>ind<sub>;" looks visually a bit strange in my browser, since the ";" appears like a prime on "ind" i.e. like " ind' " in the subscript and a strange dot on top... Suggest to add a space: "(IR union LV) is D<sub>ind<sub> ;" * Definition of model: "(I, I) is an OWL DL-model of a DL-condition formula &phi if TVal_I(φ)=t." See above, since dl-multi-structures don't talk about J, which seems to be necessary to interpret non-document formulas, according to the BLD definitions, I am a bit confused here how TVal_I(φ) is meant to be defined. Section 5 ========= * "A RIF document contains a number of Import statements. Unary Import statements are used for importing RIF documents, and the interpretation of these statements is defined in [RIF-BLD]. " Would be nice to directly link to the respective section: [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Interpretation_of_Documents Section 3.5] i.e. "A RIF document contains a number of Import statements. Unary Import statements are used for importing RIF documents, and the interpretation of these statements is defined in [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Interpretation_of_Documents Section 3.5] of [RIF-BLD]." * "This section defines the interpretation of two-ary Import statements:" "two-ary" -- better? --> "binary" * General question: What happens if a RIF documents imports ontologies, as well as other RIF documents that respectively import ontologies? Is that covered? Where/how? That is, I am not sure whether/how this "recursive case" is covered in Section 5.2. Section 6 ========= * "Each RIF processor has sets T of supported datatypes and symbol spaces" -> "Each RIF processor has a set T of supported datatypes and symbol spaces" - that sentence is confusing is T the set of datatypes? the set of sumbol spaces? - mentioned before: I'd personally prefer to refer to sets of datatypes uniformly by DTS, instead of T. (There might be a reason for the distinction, I don't understand it, also made this remark to BLD.) * "Formally, for any pair (φ, ψ), where &phi is a BLDT,E-P combination [...]" I think you want to write here: "Formally μ is a semantics preserving mapping *to* the language of L if for any pair (φ, ψ), where &phi is a BLDT,E-P combination [...]" * "Formally, for any pair (φ, ψ) of formulas in L [...]" I am not sure what you want to say here, maybe: ""Formally ν is a semantics preserving mapping *from* the language of L if for any pair (φ, ψ), where &phi is a BLDT,E-P combination [...]"Received on Sunday, 17 May 2009 23:13:22 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:56 UTC
*