- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:46:19 -0500
- To: public-powderwg@w3.org
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
A few comments, as requested in http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-formal-20081114/#status 1. I couldn't find a specification of the particular regular expression syntax used (e.g. perl5). (Obviously this would be done by reference, not inclusion.) A citation in section 4.3 would be especially helpful. 2. Regarding the use of XMLLiteral in section 4.3, an OWL WG chair tells me: "There's an issue in that it is not certain that XMLLiteral will be a supported datatype in OWL 2 DL. It will be in OWL 2 with RDF Semantics. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0110.html If you think that will be a mistake, please send mail to public-owl- comments. Soon." 3. Regarding "wdrs:matchesregex rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource" -- this won't work in OWL DL. If you care about DL you should replace rdfs:Resource with owl:Thing. I don't think anything will suffer much for doing so. 4. IEXT is not defined; I think you should cite the document that defines it. It appears you mean the 2004 RDF Semantics recommendation http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/ . I see that you cite it in 4.6 but it is needed in 4.3. 5. If you mean for POWDER to work with OWL-DL, have you had anyone review the POWDER semantics with an eye to interaction with OWL-DL model theoretic semantics? Would you consider saying something about this in your document, since OWL-DL semantics differs from RDF semantics? 6. "equivalence relation" has a technical meaning in mathematics and I don't think it's what you mean here. I think that if you just say "relation" you will convey the right thing. Best Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 18:47:00 UTC