Re: Review of RDF mapping

All of the "editorial" comments, i.e., those below are addressed in


From: Uli Sattler <>
Subject: Review of RDF mapping
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:12:31 +0100

> 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?


> - Section 3.5
> --- contains a "patters"

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 12:42:29 UTC