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

Re: Action 309: Review of QR document

From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:24:14 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670904080924j770957d8w183ef77e5701082e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernardo Cuenca Grau <Bernardo.Cuenca.Grau@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Thanks for the review. They have been incorporated into the new
version. More details are inline


On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Bernardo Cuenca Grau
<Bernardo.Cuenca.Grau@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Below, my review of the QR document.
> Bernardo
> ------------
> Please take care of the following remarks:
> - I do not quite understand the beginning of Section 2.1 (bullet `OWL
> Classes'). The format seems also
> slightly broken (why use a bullet for `OWL Classes'?).
Subsections are only for ease of editing. They will be removed soon.

> - Indicate clearly what kind of information is included in each column of
> each table.
> In general, I think it would be a good idea to add headers to the columns of
> the tables to clearly
> indicate what they represent.
A statement is added at the beginning of section 2.

> - There are various links missing in the tables (for example the link to
> `existential' on the first
> column of Section 2.1.2).
Some are missing because the lack of, or the obsolete of, anchors in
other documents. I am trying to update the links as much as I can (all
available links are listed in

> - There is a recurring typo in the last column of the tables (RDF
> serialization). When saying `if D presents', it should
> say either `if D present', or `if D is present' (the latter being better
> because it is consistent with
> `if D is missing' used throughout the document.

> - I do not think it is a good idea to use a question mark (?) for references
> to the New Features and Rationale document.
> It is slightly misleading.
Changed to (N)

> - Please double-check the links to the primer on the first column of the
> tables, because some of them
> are pointing to the beginning of the document and not to the appropriate
> section. Same happens with some of the links to the
> Syntax document.
That's mostly caused by the lost of anchors in their evolution. They
will be updated soon.

> - The summary of global conditions in Section 3 seems to be incomplete.
> For example, there are global restrictions on datatypes that are missing.
> Please, make sure that the document is in sync. with the Syntax document.
As they are quite complex, it's better to remove them. I add a
sentence saying there are global restrictions and link to Syntax.

> - There is a mismatch between Section Section 2.3.1 and the beginning of
> Section 2.1. The table in
> Section 2.3.1 has 4 columns, whereas the table in Section 2.1 has only two.
> They are containing
> different types of information.
Normally, a table has columns
*  1st: construct's name and link to Primer and New Features and
Rationale (if applicable)
* 2nd: functional syntax and link to Syntax
* 3rd: RDF syntax with link to Mapping to RDF Graphs
* 4th (optional): notes

> - There is no link to the Syntax document in Section 4.2
Fixed. However, not all facets have definition.

> - Section 4.1 on Built-in datatypes does not seem to be up to date. For
> example, in the section of `time instants' the
> syntax document only mentions xsd:dateTimeStamp. Please, double-check the
> whole section to make sure that all the information
> is in sync. with the syntax document.
Fixed. However, the current Syntax doc mentions both   xsd:dateTime
and  xsd:dateTimeStamp


Jie Bao
Facebook,Twitter,Skype,Msn,LinkedIn - check url above
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 16:24:54 UTC

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