W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > June 2011

Various comments on SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:39:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4DF86196.2050308@deri.org>
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
These are various comments (mostly editorial) about SPARQL 1.1 
Entailment Regimes.  Overall, I find this document very good.

Apart from the detailed comments below, my main concerns are the following:

  A)  Section 2.1 and 3.2 should be put together in a separate section. 
  2.1 does not belong to Section 2 "RDF entailment" and 3.2 does not 
belong to Section 3 "RDFS entailment".  They both are applicable to any 
entailment regime.

  B)  D-entailment is not defined as in RDF Semantics.  Why?  The 
definition does not even correspond to an OWL 2 D-entailment, nor a RIF 

Detailed comments:
  - At the end of the abstract, give a comprehensive list of the 
entailment regimes given in this document instead of "...such as RDF 
entailment, RDFS entailment, etc."
  - Section "Changes":
   * "forth" -> fourth
   * "has been made explicit in for each regime" -> in OR for?
  - Sec.1.1.3:
   * use a different font or face (bold, italic, etc) for variables to 
differentiate them from normal words (especially "I", "a", which are 
English words too).
   * "A triple pattern is member of the set" -> is a member
  - Sec.1.3:
   * certain well-formed of RDF graphs" -> well-formed RDF graphs
   * "to be taken to to address" -> taken to address
  - Sec.2:
   * "forth" -> fourth
   * condition (C2) is different from the condition given in Sec.2.2, 
where \mu(x) is replaced by sk(\mu(x)) and SG is replaced by sk(SG). 
Please harmonise.
  - Sec.2.1:
   * I don't see any reason why this section is in the RDF entailment 
regime section. It's clearly independent of the entailment regime. Even 
the examples inside are going beyond RDF entailment. This should be in a 
separate section
   * there is the following example:
ex:s ex:p "<a/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral .
ex:p rdfs:domain rdfs:Literal .
I don't see why the second line was included.
   * in the last example triples:
_:lit rdf:type rdfs:literal .
It should read "Literal" with a capital "L".
  - In Sec.2.2: compare condition (C2) here and in the tables of the 
entailment regimes;
  - Sec.3.1: "Here we can to derive the" -> we can derive?
  - Sec.3.2: this has nothing to do in the section on RDFS regime. It is 
independent of the regime, like sec.2.1. Make a separate section, 
probably together with what's in Sec.2.1;
  - Sec.4:
   * "A datatype map for the D-entailment refime MUST contain at least 
all pairs of the form <prefix:dt,dt>, ..." -> this is different from the 
definition in RDF Semantics. RDF D-entailment does not require that XSDs 
are included in the datatype map.
   * """The set Lit(SG) is the set of all literals "xx"^^dt such that 
"yy"^^pdt occurs in SG, xx is the canonical representation of yy, and 
pdt is the primitive datatype from which dt is derived""" -> dt and pdt 
should be swapped. The same error occurs in Sec.5 and Sec.6.
  - Sec.4.1:
   * "e.g., integer, byte, and short all based on decimal" -> ..., and 
short are all based ...
   * "(from the first tripe)" -> from the first triple
  - Sec.5.2: the editorial note is correct, the example is not well 
chosen. Use this example instead:
Data: ex:x owl:sameAs "5"^^xsd:decimal .
Query: SELECT ?l WHERE { ex:x owl:differentFrom ?l .}
  - Sec.5.3: "reasoning problems in OWL under OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics 
are undecidable ..." -> semi decidable, which means the computation of 
the query results always finishes in finite time.
  - Sec.6.5.1: "OWL 2 DL can also handle ... EL and QL profiles ..." -> 
and RL profile too.
  - Sec.6.5.4: "OWL 2 RL defines a syntactic subset of OWL 2, which ..." 
-> subset of OWL 2 DL, which ...
  - Sec.7.1: Illegal Handling does not specify anything about handling 
illegal graphs that are syntactically correct.
  - Sec.7.3: the sentence "The ex:hasHospitalization ... with the 
events.", though grammatically correct, is very convoluted and hardly 
readable. Please rephrase it.
  - Sec.8: "For an example, we consider a data set with consists of an 
empty ..." -> For example, we consider a data set which consists ...
  - References:
   * the W3C ref should have a link to the current version, not the 
latest which may be different from what is used by the SPARQL spec.
   * why is "OWL 2 Profiles" not normative?
Antoine Zimmermann
Researcher at:
Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information
Database Group
7 Avenue Jean Capelle
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
Tel: +33(0)4 72 43 61 74 - Fax: +33(0)4 72 43 87 13
Lecturer at:
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
20 Avenue Albert Einstein
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 07:39:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:29 UTC