RE: reply to a POWDER Group request

Hi!

Only some trivial/minor things, no change of the intended content of the proposed mail:

>Dear Phil,
>
>thanks for you note. 
            ^^^
"your" ? 

>We have indeed found some problems in section 4.6
>of http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-powder-formal-20090403/ which needs
>updates. There are as follows.
          ^^^^^
"They" ?

>- The reference should be to XSD1.1 and not XSD2:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
>
>- 'At the time of writing, the OWL-2' should say "OWL 2" (ie, no hyphen)
>
>- The reference to OWL 2 currently points to the OWL 2 primer. 
                                                      ^^^^^
Maybe better "Primer" (capitalized).

>We think
>it would be better if it pointed at the (new) OWL 2 Overview document:
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"OWL 2 Document Overview [document]" (the second "document", while correct, sounds a bit strange after the change).

>http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>
>- The semantic condition refers to rdfs:Resource for the domain of
>hasIRI. Although the description refers to an extension of the RDF
>semantics, it makes use of, say, owl:DatatypeProperty. Hence it may be
>stylistically better to refer to owl:Thing.
>
>- The encoding of the condition in the example has several problems,
>partially due to some recent changes in OWL 2. These are
>
>    - namespace changes (OWL 2 refers to xsd:pattern directly and not
>owl:pattern; it 
              ^^
"OWL 2" (looks like "it" refers to "owl:pattern".

>reuses rdfs:Datatype instead of datarange)
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
"owl:DataRange"

>    - we also think that the type of restriction used is inappropriate.
>owl:hasValue should refer to a single individual and not to a
>datatype/datarange. Based on the rest of the POWDER semantics, what you
>probably have to use is owl:allValuesFrom, but this is something you
>have to decide, of course
>
>    - the RDF mapping of facets is based on a list of blank nodes
>instead of the approach used in the current code
>
>The first example (the second has similar structure) should look
>something like:
>
><owl:Restriction>
>  <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="....#hasIRI"/>
>  <owl:allValuesFrom>
>    <rdfs:Datatype>
>      <owl:onDatatype rdf:resource="...#string"/>
>      <owl:withRestrictions rdf:parseType="Collection">
>        <rdf:Description>
>          <xsd:pattern rdf:datatype="...#string">PATTERN</xsd:pattern>
>        </rdf:Description>
>      </owl:withRestrictions>
>    <rdfs:Datatype>
>  </owl:allValuesFrom>
></owl:Restriction>
>
>
>We are sorry not to have spotted this issue earlier.
>
>Sincerely
>
>Ivan
>(In the name of the OWL 2 Working Group)

Cheers,
Michael

--
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
=======================================================================