Review of XML Serialization (first part) from Rinke Hoekstra on 2009-04-06 (public-owl-wg@w3.org from April 2009)

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:44:03 +0200
To: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1AF2E88D-69D3-44E3-94DB-7A994226F223@uva.nl>

Hi,

Here's my review of the XML Serialization. I only had a cursory look
at the XML schema itself, but I will have another more thorough look
once the abbreviation mechanism is in place.

Some of my comments are wordsmithing, but as this part of our
specification is a bit controversial, I think we should tread very
carefully...

Overall
* Some parts of the texts read as a report on how the XML schema was
constructed. I don't think that's the right tone for this document,
and I suggest a more matter-of-fact description of the schema itself.
* The document is titled "XML Serialization", but the text
consistently uses "XML Syntax". I suggest to use the former
throughout, as it is less contentious.
* Document links called [OWL 2 Specification] point to the structural
specification (in line with what the Profiles and Direct Semantics
documents do). The Document Overview calls these links [OWL 2
Structural Specification]... maybe consistent use of these should be
checked across all documents.

Section 1 (Overview)

* The section could use a bit more structure, e.g. by adding small
headings for paragraphs on mapping to UML classes, namespace, parsing
and profiles.

1st paragraph,
* "RDF/XML remains the primary", consider rephrasing to "RDF/XML is
the primary" (current wording suggests that XML is somehow newer, and
we all know newer is better...)
* the 'this' in "use of this syntax by OWL 2 tools is optional" is a
bit ambiguous.
* 'link' to [XQuery] is not a link

3rd paragraph
* `links' to [OWL 2 Specification] and [XML Schema] are not links
* "The XML schema has been obtained by a straightforward
translation... " consider rephrasing to "The XML schema is a
straightforward translation..."
* I had to look up the term 'eponymous' (as I had no clue as to what
it means), and it seems that it is more appropriately used to refer to
person names, rather than UML classes.

4th paragraph
* What 'useful parents' are is not immediately obvious. (don't think
this needs a change in the doc...)

5th paragraph (starting with 'Additionally ..')
* the "just didn't make sense" is a bit informal for a document.
Consider rephrasing to ".... some groups are mere documentation, and
are not included as types:"

7th paragraph
* "Tools parsing OWL 2 ontologies in this syntax need to additionally
implement these global conditions", shouldn't/musn't there be a should
or must in this sentence?

8th paragraph
* "Therefore the OWL 2 XML Syntax can be parsed more easily than by
using the canonical parsing process..." s/Syntax/Serialization, but
also "easily" is a bit too easy, consider a less informal word.

9th paragraph
* Text mentions "xsd:anyURI" but only refers to XML Schema part 1
(structure) and not part 2 (datatypes), consider adding a link to http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

* What about the "owl:Prefix" element? It is defined by the schema,
but referred to anywhere else in the document. This section should at
least describe (or refer to) the way in which prefixed names are
resolved to full iri's

Section 2 (Example Ontology)

* Is the reference to 'live-from-wiki.xsd" in the schema location
intentional? I assume the schema will change to a more permanent
location in the future. Perhaps we should use that location instead of
the live one?
* Very (very) minor remark: class names usually start with an
uppercase character.

Section 3 (Example Ontology)

Review is done *before* IRI abbreviation was introduced, but *after*
the Prefix element was defined.

* The schema does not define the owl:priorVersion,
owl:backwardCompatibleWith and owl:incompatibleWith ontology
properties which are part of the OWL 2 Specification

-Rinke

---
Drs Rinke Hoekstra

Homepage: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke

Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 13:56:43 UTC