- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:47:21 -0400 (EDT)
- To: schneid@fzi.de
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de> Subject: Part I of Response to Peter F. Patel-Schneider [RE: review of RDF-Based Semantics] Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:15:41 +0200 > 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, > Michael > >>-----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. > > Ok. > >>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". This is not a request for a wording change just for stylistic reasons. My belief is that IRI reference is technically incorrect, as it includes relative IRIs. SS&FS has already made this change. RDF uses URI reference to mean absolute URI with optional fragment. >>Wording changes: All OK. >>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 >> > > !!! NOT YET TREATED !!! > (more time please) > >>2/ Still thinking about n-ary datatypes. > peter
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 20:45:57 UTC