W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2005

[XSCH, ALL] some detailed comments from datatype note review

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:08:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200501122308.SAA18761@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, zpan@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

I am still working on some more general comments about the XSCH
Datatype note [1] authored by Jeremy Carroll and Jeff Pan.  However,
here are my detailed notes.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/


Detailed comments:

- Section 1.3: Editorial/presentation issue - In the definition for an
"OWL datatype interpretation" are the words "for each supported
datatype URIref u w.r.t. D" intended to be subscript?  They rendered
this way on every browser I tried.

- Section 1.4: In the definition for a "unary datatype group" the term
"primitive base datatype" is used.  What is the qualifier "primitive"
meant to convey here?  It seems to me that these are merely datatypes
in the group which are not derived from other datatypes in the
group. "base datatype" seems sufficient to convey this.  The current
wording could be interpreted to denote XML Schema primitive datatypes,
which is inconsistent with the example.

- In the definition for "unary datatype expressions" the text reading,
" the set of G unary datatype expressions," looks incorrect.  Should
it read, "the set of unary datatype expressions for G,"?

- Example 1D.  Cool.  Where and how can someone use this in OWL DL

- Section 2.3.  Suggest adding a transition after the first
paragraph.  Something like: "There are some issues with this

- Section 3.5: In this section the term "primitive-equality" is used
  to (I think) refer to equality as described in section 3.4.  If this
  is true, then the term should be introduced in section 3.4 and used
  consistently thereafter when referring to that concept.

- should the subsection entitled "Using eq in RDF and OWL" be better
  titled "The Semantics of Using eq in RDF and OWL"?

- There is still a note to the editor in this section, "@@@ todo
  datetime stuff - I think they are all incomparible should check."


Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 23:08:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:41 UTC