W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

[TF-ENT] Review of the entailment document

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:02:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4AD4A484.1020601@w3.org>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hey Birte,

this is what I found...

- section on 'Examples for the restriction on solutions' for RDF
entailment, first bulleted point on C1, it should be 'instance mapping
sigma' and not 'instance mapping mu'. The same error occurs in the next
bulleted point.

- Section  on 'Examples for the restriction on solutions' but for RDFS
entailement, the code example for 'From the entailed triples, we
get...', I think in all four cases it should be mu and sigma and not mu
an mu... And the same in the text right after the example... And the
same again a few lines below, when repeating the example using _:sga

- On the inconsistency with xml literals: the example uses <ex:p> bt the
text below used <ex:b>. I presume these should be identical.

- I think that a separate 'hook' for OWL Full should be added, too,
separate from OWL 2 RL

- I originally thought that, in the final document, the whole section on
'Other possible design choices for finite answer' should be set as an
editorial comment, with, maybe, a request for comments for the
community. Ie, the WG has decided for what is written down, but feedback
is welcome. But my understanding of today's call is that this section
may be removed altogether from the published version, which is more
radical (but fine with me). The same holds on the section on
inconsistencies, or at least on the last few paragraphs that say 'would
be to specify' etc.

- RDF-T and RDF-B are not defined, though used in the query answers
table row for, say, RDF Entailement. A reference to the corresponding
SPARQL Terms (12.1.1) would be helpful.

Maybe it helps if, somewhere at the beginning of the document, there is
a reference to the relevant section of the SPARQL spec, listing those
terms and abbreviations that the document uses. That would make it an
easier read...

- A bit of a pain-in-the-back and legalistic comment:-): the text refers
to various RDF(S) entailment rules in the examples and explanation.
Maybe it is worth noting that those entailment rules are not normative
in the RDF Semantics document. By explicitly flagging the example
sections as informative it should be o.k., though.

- The official denominations are OWL 2 RL/QL/EL (ie, including the '2')

That is all...




Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 16:02:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:57 UTC