- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:12:31 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi, 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 cosmetic. - "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 tables? - 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