W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: s+as review (fwd)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:26:56 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030425132542.048bf328@localhost>
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Jan,

I take it these are comments on:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/

Brian

At 11:19 25/04/2003 +0100, Jan Grant wrote:

>Doh! just made teh same mistake again.
>
>--
>jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
>Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:18:09 +0100 (BST)
>From: Jan Grant <cmjg@bristol.ac.uk>
>To: Undisclosed recipients:  ;
>Subject: s+as review
>
>Resent, failed to add rdfcore to recipients on Wednesday.
>
>2.1 para beginning "names of ontologies..."
>
>Is this the first time dereferencing of web documents has got into an
>RDF or OWL spec? Check PatH this is ok [this comment not for final
>submission] I _like_ it that there's a 'webification' of relationships
>between ontologies, however sketched it is.
>
>
>[just a thumbs-up] the 'literate' style used in presenting the BNF is
>good.
>
>2.1
>"In OWL, as in RDF, a datatype denotes the set of data values that is
>the value space for the datatype."
>
>- Not true of RDF? A datatype can be treated as a class in RDF - the
>class corresponds to its value space, but not the same thing. Strike "as
>in RDF"
>
>
>2.2 Facts
>
>"Normal Form C" - has this restriction been relaxed now? Check JJC.
>
>
>2.2
>"The second kind of fact is used to make individual identifiers be the
>same or pairwise distinct." Nit - same/distinct denotations?
>
>
>2.3 Axioms
>[editorial] WG -> working group; don't hyphenate "more-neutral"
>
>2.3.1.3
>[editorial] "The only information in axiom for them is annotations."
>Insert "the".
>
>2.3.1.3 & throughout
>[editorial] suggest "dataValuedPropertyID" and
>"individualValuedPropertyID" (different intercapping)
>
>2.3.2.1 BNF for axiom
>[[
>         | 'EquivalentClasses(' description { description } ')'
>]]
>[Editorial] Other 'equivalentX' productions specify a minimum of two
>equivalent Xs.
>
>2.3.2.3 Para 1.
>[editorial] "As well," suggest "In addition," instead.
>
>
>3.1
>Definition of datatype theory
>[editorial] stumbled over the parenthetical "(non-disjoint)" - is it
>necessary? Would suggest to strike.
>
>3.1
>Definition of OWL Vocabulary
>May have missed it, but don't you want to keep rdf:type out of the
>various "V_x"s too?
>
>3.1
>[editorial, accessibility] This is a nit, but when I first viewed this
>document, the "I"s and "l"s were indistinguishable. Maybe italicise the
>"l"?
>
>3.2 and elsewhere
>[nit] It may be in standard use, in which case ignore this comment, but
>the terminology 'oneOf' for sets of singletons doesn't seem to express
>(when read informally in Engligh) its intended behaviour. If it's not
>too late would replace with 'singletons' or some other term.
>
>3.2 [nit]
>[[
>restriction(p x_1 ... x_n)
>]]
>Suddest adding ", for n > 1" since n=1 cases are dealt with below this.
>
>3.3 [lauds] I like the layout here.
>
>3.4
>Unnamed ontologies: informally, multiple Annontations on an unnamed
>ontology don't need to be satisfied by the same x according to this
>table. Don't think that's right.
>
>4.
>[typo] "abstarct" in the first para.
>
>4.1
>[note] While the abstract syntax naturally associates (via syntactic
>nesting) ontologies with all their directives, no such association is
>made in teh RDF graph expression of the ontology (apart from
>Annotations). I can see why this is the case.
>
>I'm not really sold on the translation table; I think the meaning of it
>is unclear. However, I'm stumped as to an alternative compact expression
>of the translation into RDF Graph form so feel free to ignore this
>comment.
>
>5.1 and throughout
>[editorial, nit++] inconsistent capitalisation rules applied to
>headings. Would capitalise "Universe" here.
>
>5.2, the "Note". The term "constructor" is not defined in the document
>and is only used in one other place.
>
>Apendix A.1
>Phew. I've been over this proof three times and it looks
>exhausti(ve|ng).
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 08:26:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:01 EDT