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

That was quick:-)

Thanks!

I.

Birte Glimm wrote:
> 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.
> corrected
> 
>> - 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
> corrected
> 
>> - 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
> them.
> 
>> - The official denominations are OWL 2 RL/QL/EL (ie, including the '2')
> updated
> 
>> That is all...
> Thanks for the very useful comments,
> Birte
> 
>> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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