Review of RDF mapping


below is the outcome of my review of the RDF mapping. In general, this  
is a well-written, clear document, and I didn't see any serious  
technical problems. In fact, most of my comments are trivial or  

- "datatype" is a single word in Syntax, so perhaps it should be here  
as well

- Section 2.1, in the first paragraph,  it says that the mapping T  
produces RDF(O): this seems to be confusing. Can't we say that T  
produces T(O)? Should it be mentioned explicitly that T is defined  
recursively? And should there be an explanation of "Main Node of  
T(S)" (where is it used/what is it good for?) -- especially since T(S)  
might *not* produce any triple, but only a single node ?

- in Table 1,
--- there are 2 lines for translating "Ontology (..)" statements:  
could we have a little comment in each line like "For ontologies with  
a URI"/"For ontologies without a URI"?

- in Section 2.2, can we rephrase "let ax' be the axiom that is  
equivalent to ax but that contains no annotations" with "let ax' be  
the axiom that is obtained from ax by removing all annotations' (or be  
more precise re. 'equivalent')?

- in Section 3,

--- could we make it more clear when "any matched triple is removed"?  
E.g., can have a special indicator in the tables to show which are  
"destructive"? Or at least indicate it always in the title or before a  
the table?

--- I found "The rules from the following sections are not allowed to  
redefine the value of any of these functions for some x." for 2  
reasons: (1) they *are* redefined because they change these functions  
from "= epsilon" to something else, and (2) shouldn't it be "for any  
x." at the end?

--- can we add "{...}" after "Possible conditions on the pattern are  
enclosed in curly braces" (it would help to find this sentence!) and  
replace "Possible" with "Additional"? And the same for square brackets  
and [...]

--- Table 2 is repeated from Table 1 -- can this be made clear so that  
the reader doesn't have to check how they differ?

- the beginning of Section 3.1 seems contradictory: if G contains no  
"whose predicate is rdf:type and object is owl:Ontology, then the  
ontology header is Ontology( ... )." seems to indicate that the  
absence of such a triple is fine, whereas "if no such pattern can be  
matched in G, or ..., the graph G is rejected as invalid." indicates  
that this absence leads to rejection?!

- "tiple" in Table 3

- in Table 5, doesn't the second case need a condition {and *:x  
rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty is not in G}? And similar for the others?

- can the columns of  Table 8 be swapped to fit in with the other  

- in Table 10, if we have

_x owl:inverseOf *:y1,
_x owl:inverseOf *:y2

then OPE(_x:) is, say InverseOf( OPE(*:y2)), and thus I am afraid the  
we will miss that :y1 and :y2 are equivalent?!  The same observation  
can be made in Table 12 with ComplementOf: perhaps things like   
CE(_:x) need to be sets, and you then use the other rules on all  
elements in these sets? Or is this related to a confusion mentioned  
above of   "The rules from the following sections are not allowed to  
redefine the value of any of these functions for some x." ?

- Section 3.5
--- contains a "patters"

Received on Monday, 8 September 2008 18:13:06 UTC