W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Part I of Response to Peter F. Patel-Schneider [RE: review of RDF-Based Semantics]

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:15:41 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0011DA5DD@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Peter!

Many thanks for your review. In particular, thank you for the improvements in the Wiki (the other mail you sent). 

There is one comment left that I did not yet find the time to answer, which is the request for a technical change concerning Keys. So you will receive another mail on this particular topic within the next few days.

For all other points, see my answers below.

Best regards,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:59 PM
>To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: review of RDF-Based Semantics
>General comments:
>The document is very close to being acceptable for LC.

Sounds good, thank you!

>The remaining uses of "OWL 2 Full" can stay.


>Terminology change:
>"IRI reference" -> "absolute IRI"

The (consistent) use of "IRI reference" in the document was deliberate, because the term "URI reference" is (also consistently) used in the original RDF Semantics document. In general, I wanted to avoid terminological deviation from the RDF Semantics. I also want to note that the term "IRI reference" is used in the IRI specification itself (RFC 3987).

Nevertheless, I would agree to change the term, if "IRI reference" would not be in use in the rest of the OWL 2 document suite. However, I can see that this term is frequently used in at least the Structural Specification and in the RDF Mapping.

As a consequence, I would prefer not to change the current use of "IRI reference".

>Wording changes:
>  "is based on a particular description logic" ->
>  "is a description logic style semantics"

Ok. Same in Section 7.

DIFF: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21156&oldid=21151>

>  "namespace prefix and a local part" -> "prefix name and a local part"

Ok, I can see this naming in Section 2.4 of the Structural Spec.

DIFF: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21157&oldid=21156>

>  I suggest removing the paragraph starting "Be informed that", as it
>  not add anything to the document.

Well, I liked it... but dropped it, anyway. :)

DIFF: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21158&oldid=21157>

>    3.1: Standard Prefixes
>    Table 3.1 lists the standard prefix names and their prefix IRIs
>    used in this document.
>    Table 3.1: Standard Prefixes
>    <blank>  Prefix Name  Prefix IRI

Agreed, modulo "IRI reference" (see above).

In addition, I did the corresponding changes to Section 3.2 ("Vocabulary Terms"), and to the "Changelog" (Section 12 at the moment).

DIFF: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21159&oldid=21158>

>  [Optional] Might be able to refer directly to XSD instead of S4 of
>  	     SS&FS.

I thought about this, but I believe we are on the safe side if there is only a single of our documents telling what the semantics of the different datatypes is (either directly or by pointing to another spec). Now, this single document is the Structural Spec, and the RDF-Based Semantics just enumerates the datatype names (and the facet names), and then refers to the Structural Spec for everything else. AFAICT, this is not different from the way the Profiles document treats datatypes.

Two additional points on this:

* To be coherent with what I say above, I have removed the text referring to rdf:text concerning the meanings of the datatype rdf:text and the facet rdf:langPattern, from Sections 3.3 and 3.4, respectively.

* The only exception from what I say above is the sentence talking about the meaning of rdf:XMLLiteral in Section 3.3. I have retained this sentence and the link to the RDF Semantics, since there is specific semantic treatment for rdf:XMLLiteral defined in the RDF Semantics that is only relevant for the RDF-Based Semantics.
I have also moved all paragraphs in front of the tables, and removed the now redundant reference to the RDF:TEXT spec.

DIFF: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21160&oldid=21159>

>  "is based on a particular description logic" ->
>  "is a description logic style semantics"

Ok, as for the Introduction (see above for the diff).

>  "Problem" -> "Reason"			multiple times
>  "Solution for" -> "Resolution of"	multiple times
>  "Complete Solution" -> "Complete Resolution"

Ok to all. Also having looked through the other parts of the document that refer to this section.

DIFF: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21166&oldid=21160>

>   Format the list so that doesn't have both bullets and numbers.

This problem exists in several places, and I agree that it is ugly. I can see at least two ways to tackle this: Wiki-Ordered-Lists (which are essentially HTML ordered liss) or explicit indentation by means of our style sheets. 

I decided to defer this purely cosmetic change to right before the PR phase. This makes sense since I plan to spend some time on revising the proof of the correspondence theorem, and, in particular, I want to more often refer to the different items by their number within the proof.

I have added an item to the "Outstanding Editorial Work" EdNote at the beginning of the document.

DIFF: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21170&oldid=21166> 
>   Reword the list element "a subgraph g of G2"
>   to something like "any subgraph g of G2 that is the RDF encoding

Ok, but not quite easy to reformulate... Does this sound better now?

DIFF: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=RDF-Based_Semantics&diff=21171&oldid=21170>

>Technical Changes:
>1/ Align keys with treatment in direct semantics:
>   5.2:
>    owl:NamedIndividual	\in IC 	\subseteq IR
>  5.2:
>    Remove the "Informative Note".
>  5.14:
>    Add x,y \in NamedIndividual after the "if" in the RHS of Table 5.14

(more time please)

>2/ Still thinking about n-ary datatypes.

Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 20:16:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC