RE: review rdf:text

Hello Jos,

Thanks a log for your detailed review! Please find my answers inline.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Jos de Bruijn
> Sent: 12 April 2009 15:15
> To: public-rdf-text@w3.org; RIF
> Subject: review rdf:text
> 
> Herewith my review of the current version of rdf:text [1].
> 
> I have three substantive comments that I think should be implemented
> before going to last call:
> 
> 1- in the preliminaries: XML namespaces does not define a convention for
> the abbreviating URIs.  Rather, you are using the convention of RDF for
> abbreviating URIs.  In addition, the reference to XML namespace is
> misleading, since in XML names are pairs (namespace, local name),
> whereas in your document names are URIs.  Please refer to RDF when
> discussing the URI abbreviation mechanism.  Then, I believe the `.'
> after xpath-functions and rdf-text-functions should be replaced with a `#'.

Agreed. I've rephrased the text in the preliminaries to use the terminology that
we have in OWL (prefix URI and prefix name). Please let me know should you have
further comments.

> 2- section 3, definition of value space: I believe this is not a
> sufficient definition.  So, I propose to replace "contains" with
> "consists of"

Agreed -- replaced.

> 3- definition of rtfn:compare: this function seems under-defined.  I
> believe that if $collation is given, and is not of type xs:string, the
> function should raise an error.  Then, it is undefined what happens if
> both comparands do not have a language tag.  In particular, it is not
> possible to determine whether their language tags are unequal, because
> they're not there.
> 

Agreed -- I've added a clarification to that end.

> After these comments are addressed, the document can go to last call, as
> far as I'm concerned.
> 
> 
> I have a few more editorial comments:
> 
> 4- Last paragraph of the introduction: the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype does
> not have a feature called xml:lang.

To clarify what we mean, I rephrased the sentence like this:

"...such as using the <tt>xml:lang</tt> attribute on the data values of the
<tt>rdf:XMLLiteral</tt> datatype."

> 5- section 5.1.1: why write "of type rdf:text" twice?  The function
> simply returns these values, and clearly they are of type rdf:text.

Agreed -- I've removed both occurrences of "of type rdf:text".

> 6- in sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 I strongly suggest to replace "extract"
> with "returns", to make the definition of the function more homogeneous
> and because "extract" is not defined

Agreed -- done.

> 7- the style specification of rtfn:compare is somewhat different from
> the specification of the other functions.  In rtfn:compare English is
> used to refer to different components of the input values, whereas in
> the other specifications symbols (s,l) are being used.  I would suggest
> to you symbols in section 5.2.1 as well.

This is a bit difficult because you have four cases in general. Using the
formulation such as "the string part of $comparand1" allows us to overcome the
problem of treating the case when $comparand1 has a language tag separately from
the one when it doesn't have a language tag,

> 8- in section 5.2.1, it is unclear what the mention "operators" are.  As
> far as I know, RDF, RIF, and OWL 2 do not define any of the mentioned
> operators.
> 

I've rephrased slightly the text to make it clear that we are talking about
XQuery operators here. 

> 
> Jos
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=InternationalizedStringSpec&ol
> did=21811
> --
> +43 1 58801 18470        debruijn@inf.unibz.it
> 
> Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
> ----------------------------------------------
> Many would be cowards if they had courage
> enough.
>   - Thomas Fuller

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 13:45:47 UTC