- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:39:10 -0400 (EDT)
- To: sattler@cs.man.ac.uk
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
All of the "editorial" comments, i.e., those below are addressed in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=12437&oldid=12326 peter From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk> 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