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

Re: Review of the RDF Mapping (Action 315)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090407.160844.12012364.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schneid@fzi.de
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: RE: Review of the RDF Mapping (Action 315)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 20:46:41 +0200

> Hi Peter!
> I'm fine with everything that I do not mention.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> * 2.1, 1st par: The explanation there ("recursive definition") is
>>> to understand. I admit that I did not get it even after reading it a
>>> second time. Perhaps explain by example, or reword the text.
>>I'm not sure how to reword and keep both brevity and correctness.  I've
>>made a slight change, which might help.
> I believe I now know where (at least part of) my confusion results from:
> [[
>     if the mapping of a construct refers to the mapping of a 
> --> subconstruct, 
>     then the triples generated by the recursive invocation 
>     of the mapping are added to the graph under construction, 
>     and 
> --> its 
>     main node is used in place of the recursive invocation itself.
> ]]
> I guess it is the "its". Does this "its" refer to the "subconstruct"?
> In any case, the best thing would be to explicitly write the thing 
> being meant instead of "its".

"its" refers to the mapping of the subconstruct

I've made a change to try to make this clearer.

>>> * Table 16, owl:hasKey: Is it deliberate that the sets "y1,...",
>>> "z1,..." and "w1,..." are not enclosed in "{ }"? Looks like a typo.
>>You mean in T(SEQ y1 ... yn) etc.  Yes, this is very deliberate.  These
>>are not sets.
> Well, but they are /called/ "sets". And the order of all the yi
> doesn't matter. Same for all the zi, and for all the wi.

The wording has been changed to use "sequence".

> But it's not so important. But I think the presentation should 
> be at least everywhere the same: I just found that there are "," 
> separating the zi and wi, but not for the yi.

Also fixed.

> Michael

Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 20:06:55 UTC

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