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

Re: [TF-ENT] Review of the entailment document

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:13:29 +0100
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0910131113v4e29940bs739f18938d49e9eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
2009/10/13 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
> Hey Birte,
> this is what I found...
> (Semi-editorial)
> - 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.
yes, corrected

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

> - 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.

I also thought that they would be editorial comments, but I couldn't
figure out how to do this nicely in the wiki. My editorial comments
are quite ugly and do not work well for multi-line comments :-( I'll
do that in the W3C document and for now I have added (Editor's
Comment) to the secion heading.

> (Editorial)
> - 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...
I added a section preliminary definitions, where I quickly recapture
the important definitions and point to the SPARQL Quary Language spec
for normative definitions.

> - 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.
yes, good comment. I flagged them as informative and added a comment
to the introduction pointing out that the RDF(S) rules are just used
in an informative way and that systems are not expected to implement

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

> That is all...
Thanks for the very useful comments,

> Cheers
> Ivan
> --
> 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

Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 18:14:02 UTC

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