RE: Comments: OWL 2 RL in RIF FPWD

Hi Dave!

A few minor things remain. Please see below!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 12:22 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: public-rif-comments@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Comments: OWL 2 RL in RIF FPWD

>> * 4.4.3, "Type checking", all translations: The "OWL 2 RL in RIF"
>document always uses the positive predicates "pred:is-literal-DATATYPE",
>but I think it should be the negative forms "pred:is-literal-not-
>DATATYPE" according to §4.3 of RIF DTB. Also, the negative forms should
>again only receive a single argument, not two. So I guess the correct
>form would be something like (for xsd:integer):
>>
>>        Forall ?lt (
>>          rif:error() :- And (
>>            ?lt[rdf:type->xsd:integer] External(pred:is-literal-not-
>integer( ?lt )) ))
>>
>> Mind the changed triple "?lt[rdf:type->xsd:integer]"!
>
>Part of same problem as above, fixed.

technical/minor: There is still the redundant variable "?dt" after "Forall" in all translations. While probably technically harmless, this should be removed to avoid confusion.

>> LIST OF EDITORIAL ERRORS
>> ========================
>>
>> * 4.4.2, last paragraph: "... which include owl:sameAs ...".
>"owl:sameAs" should be rendered in typewriter font.
>
>Fixed.

editorial/trivial: The name of the translation should then better also reflect the name of the datatype; currently it is still "(* dt-type1-text *)" instead of something like "(* dt-type1-plainliteral *)".

>> * Alignment of variable names between original OWL 2 RL rules and
>their translations: I suggest to reuse the variable names of the
>original rule set wherever possible. This is currently not always the
>case in the draft. For example, in 4.3.1 the translation of the rule eq-
>diff2 uses the name "?r" for what the original rule uses "?x", and the
>translation uses itself "?x", but for something different. And the
>translation of eq-diff3 uses again a different name "?a" instead of "?r"
>before (and "?x" in the original rule). This is confusing and makes it
>unnecessarily hard to compare the original rules with the translations.
>
>Mostly the use of variables does correspond since the translation was
>mechanical. The "list" rules are the main exception where manual
>intervention was required, not least to cope with the hidden variables
>that are implicit in the notation from OWL Profiles. In manually writing
>those rules I found it easier to use semi-mnemonic names (?l for the
>list etc). However, since you say this caused you a problem then I have
>changed those particular cases.

Now it turned into a technical issue. ;-) You seem to have introduced a typo in (* prp-adp *), near "Forall": ">v" instead of "?v".

Cheers,
Michael

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================