- From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:30:37 +0000
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-166: LC Comment: Michael Schneider - non-urgent issues [RDF Semantics] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/166 Raised by: Guus Schreiber On product: RDF Semantics Comments by Michael Schneider http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0067.html NON-URGENT ISSUES (NOT DESIGN-RELATED): * §3: The chapter introduces the term "entailment regime", but does not say much about it. As this term is also introduced and quite intensively used in the SPARQL 1.1 spec (in particular by the SPARQL Entailment Regimes spec), I suggest to be a little more elaborate on the term, in order to avoid that the terms are not understood differently in the contexts of the two specifications. * §4, 2nd par: I would change the order of "referent and denotion" to "denotion and reference" to match the order of the two corresponding terms mentioned earlier in the text: "denotes and refers to". * §5.3 (and for other entailment regimes as well): I suggest to always be explicit on the entailment regimes, when it comes to the terms "satisfies", "entails", etc. So it should always be "simply entails", or "RDF entails", instead of only "entails", even if this may be obvious from the context (it probably isn't for everyone). After all, these are definitions and should be as precise as possible. * §5.3: the "Technical Note" on not defining entailment between graphs is in fact also a Change Note, and should be marked as such in addition. * §5.4: The Simple-semantics theorem "Every graph is satisfiable" is followed by the statement that "this does not hold for extended notions of interpretation". This text should be modified to say that it does not _always_ hold for extended notions of interpretation. One could still construct some extended notion where it does hold, although not for any of the extended notions in the RDF 1.1 Semantics. * §5.4, Technical Note: I recommend to remove the claim about graphs containing many bnodes that this is "unlikely to occur in practice". Actually, it is relatively common, namely for OWL documents with many Boolean class expressions when serialized in RDF, because for a union or intersection class expression, the number of bnodes is proportional to the number of classes occuring in the class expression. Apart from this concrete case, an assumption of the given kind has in my opinion no place in a spec document, specifically not within a technical note. * §7, 1st par: typos: - "... which datatype is identifier by..." should probably say "identified" - "... and should treat any literals type": probably "typed literals" * §7, 2nd par: Why does the text not refer to the term "lexical space", which is introduced in the RDF 1.1 Concepts document and has been used in the original RDF Semantics (and other standards as well)? In the given form, I see no reason for the term's omission, and the text reads rather awkward without a direct reference to the lexical space. * §7, 3rd par: "RDF processors are not REQUIRED". The word "not" should also be written in uppercase to avoid misconception while reading the text. * §8: Why is there no table presenting the "RDF Vocabulary"? The RDFS chapter provides such a table, and the original RDF Semantics did so as well. It would be useful, at least. * Appendices: Several of the appendix titles contain the text "(Informative)", directly followed by the sentence "This section is non-normative". This is redundant. I suggest to remove "(Informative)" from the titles, in accordance with the rest of the document. * Appendix D: I don't see a reason to repeat the "non-normative" declaration for the appendix in each of its sub-sections. * Appendix D.2, vocabulary table: I suggest to add the additional RDFS terms for the container vocabulary as well. * References: I do not understand why the following documents are listed as "normative references": - OWL2-SYNTAX - RDF-PLAIN-LITERAL
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 08:30:47 UTC