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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:37:44 +0000
Message-ID: <41E6B1E8.9080804@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
CC: zpan@cs.man.ac.uk, public-swbp-wg@w3.org


Brief initial in-line responses

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:
> 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.
> 

For Jeff to comment. I agree with Evan this is a bug, although I suspect 
this is intended, but it looks too ugly. i.e. I think this is formally 
correct usage but a rephrasing would improve the visual appearance.

> - 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,"?
> 

Jeff to comment again.
> - Example 1D.  Cool.  Where and how can someone use this in OWL DL
> descriptions?

I don't think it can. In OWL Full this can be expressed as a class 
intersection.

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

OK, will do.
> 
> - 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.

correct, will change as you suggest

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

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

I've just done that, there is an editorial issue with the definition of 
eq on these values, but the basic rule is that this is the 
primitive-equality that you mentioned above.



> *****
> 
> Evan
> 

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:38:24 UTC

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