RE: Review: XML Serialization

Hi Boris,

Yes, you are right: it is  already in the XML Schema.  So no more action 
on your part is needed.

Thanks!
Achille.




"Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> 
Sent by: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org
09/09/2008 10:34 AM

To
Achille Fokoue/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc
<public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Review: XML Serialization






Hello,
 
Regarding KeyFor, I see that it appears as an axiom; however, it appears 
as an axiom in the XML Schema, and it does so in exactly the same order. 
So am I to assume that this comment does not need addressing? Please let 
me know if this is not the case.
 
Regards,
 
            Boris
 

From: Achille Fokoue [mailto:achille@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: 09 September 2008 15:02
To: Boris Motik
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Review: XML Serialization
 

Hi Boris, 

Thanks for quickly taking into account my  comments! 

Regarding 'KeyFor', after double-checking, here is the definition of 
'Axiom' found in section 9 of the syntax spec (at least the version 
available on the WG wiki at 9:30 am ET today) : 
Axiom := Declaration | ClassAxiom | ObjectPropertyAxiom | 
DataPropertyAxiom | *KeyFor* | Assertion | EntityAnnotation | 
AnonymousIndividualAnnotation. 'KeyFor' appears as an Axiom. It also 
appears as such in the UML diagram located at the beginning of section 9.4 
. 

On a different note, I completely agree with you that facets should not be 
as tightly constrained as they were in the previous version of the XML 
Schema. 

Best regards, 
Achille. 
  


"Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> 
09/08/2008 07:54 PM 


To
Achille Fokoue/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, <public-owl-wg@w3.org> 
cc
 
Subject
RE: Review: XML Serialization
 


 
 




Hello Achille, 
  
Thanks for your review! I’ve addressed your comments as follows: 
  
- I’ve added declarations for the missing entities to the example. 
  
- I’ve changed the import statement to have the form 
<ox:Import>http://…</ox:Import>. 
  
- I’ve updated the definition of InverseObjectProperty as you’ve 
suggested. 
  
- The comment about totalDigits and fractionDigits is actually an error in 
the Syntax document: no datatype in the OWL 2 datatype map supports these 
facets. On second thought, it might be bad anyway to restrict either of 
the syntaxes to a particular set of facets: OWL 2 implementations are 
allowed to define their own facets. Therefore, the set of supported facets 
is actually defined by the datatype map and should not be checked at the 
syntax level. Consequently, I’ve updated both the Syntax document and the 
XML Syntax not to check the facets. 
  
- I’ve changed FacetLiteralPair to FacetRestriction as you’ve suggested. 
  
- I didn’t understand your comment about KeyFor: in Section 9 of the 
Syntax document, KeyFor is listed before the assertions (in the grammar, 
the diagrams, and the actual sections of the document). This is exactly 
where KeyFor is listed in XML Syntax as well. 
  
- I’ve added InverseObjectProperties to the list. 
  
Thanks again for this detailed review: I guess after so much time looking 
at it I just can’t spot the bugs any more. 
  
Regards, 
  
            Boris 
  
 


From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] 
On Behalf Of Achille Fokoue
Sent: 08 September 2008 23:27
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Subject: Review: XML Serialization 
  

Hi, 

I have completed the review of the XML Serialization spec.  My comments 
are in [1].  Note that most comments are in the XML Schema document 
itself. 

Best regards, 
Achille. 

[1]  http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization