W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Re: S&AS Review: Sections 1 to 4

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:08:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030327.100835.74381423.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
Subject: Re: S&AS Review: Sections 1 to 4
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:48:39 +0100

> >
> >> In the new version one has to read rather much text before one
> >> is able to use the directive production for annotations, since
> >> only near the end of this section possibilities are defined for
> >> annotation / ontology properties.  I believe that clarity would be
> >> much improved by including these possibilities
> >> in the two productions as follows, and to move these two productions
> >> immediately next to the first two productions (for ontology 
> >> and directive):
> >> 
> >> annotationPropertyId ::= owl:versionInfo | ... | URIreference
> >> ontologyPropertyId ::= owl:Imports | ... | owl:incompatibleWith
> >
> >I believe that this change in its entirety would not improve the
> >readability of the subsection.  However, making the list of
> >annotationPropertyIDs explicit would be useful, and has been done.
> It seems that you copied the wrong list into the production.

I copied the list to the wrong production, now fixed.  The change should
show up shortly.

> And - with only the list that you intended to copy into the
> production - the reader has to read all of Section 2.1 to find
> out how work with imports.  When you also copy the second list
> into the production (that is, the list that you copied now
> into the wrong place), looking at the productions suffices.
> An alternative would be to move the sentences containing these
> lists upward to just behind the productions.

I don't understand this, but in any case Section 2.1 is not long, so I
don't see the possibility of a problem. 

> >> A very small error in the mapping table:
> >> The first line in T(annotation...) should not end with a dot.
> >
> >Actually it should.  The periods need to be removed from where this
> >translation is used. Done.
> In that case, the extent of the error is wider than I thought.
> I tried to check all the period removals, and believe you missed
> one: the Datatype rule has currently one period too many.
> Moreover, the next two mapping rules on annotations should
> also add a period, to become consistent with the first annotation
> rule (with the period).

Agreed. Done.


> >> >From my earlier review I copy the following request
> >> for further clarification in the text before the mapping table:
> >> 
> >> It is not made clear that not only one needs other transformation
> >> rules (from the same table), but one also needs to go back to the
> >> abstract syntax in Section 2 to do other transformations before one
> >> can exploit other transformations from the same table.
> >
> >I don't understand the problem here.  I don't think that Section 2 
> defines
> >any transformations at all.
> Let me try to explain this again.
> The table in Section 4 has as first columns S and T(S).
> Look again at the first rule for Individual, for example: it contains
> T(type1) and T(v1) etc.
> If a reader starts looking in this table for 'type' in the
> first column, to find T(type1) in the second column, he will
> never find it.  Namely, he first has to use the abstract syntax
> before the table in Section 4 can be used further.
> See, more extensively, below:

Agreed, but I still don't see any problem.

> >> It would be helpful to give a brief example with the first production 
> >> where these subtilities play a role, which is the first production for
> >> Individual:
> >> Here the abstract syntax shows that T(type1) expands to 
> >> T(description) which in turn expands, again by means of the abstract
> >> syntax, to T(one of six possibilities), each
> >> of which can be handled using the transformation table.
> >> T(v1) expands to either T(individualId), T(individual) or 
> >> T(dataLiteral), each of which can be handled using the transformation 
> >> table.
> >
> >I believe that this does not need any further explanation.
> [...]
> >
> >> Herman ter Horst

Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 10:08:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:52 UTC