Re: [ALL] review of n-ary relations

> Summary: ready to publish, a few comments ...

Thanks!

> While I have some comments, none are I believe showstoppers, although I
> think I should draw three comments to the WG attention in case others
> would like them addressed before first publication.
>
> These are:
> [A] use of skolemization instead of blank nodes

as agreed at the telecon, will leave this discussion for the next 
draft. I've added this to the list of open issues/todo items

> [B] use of amazon.com instead of books.example.com

done

> [C] references not in W3C house style

will leave till the next draft.

> I found it slightly disappointing that two out of the three examples
> were medical. I think it would be easy to replace example 2 by an
> example from a different domain than example 1 and example 3.

What is the problem with using medical examples? It seems that the ones 
in the note are pretty straightforward and don't require any medical 
knowledge.

> RDF reification: I think the sentence referring the interested reader 
> to
>   the discussion of reification in RDF could be deleted. However, 
> others
> in the WG may disagree, and if the editors were to follow my 
> preference,
> it would be worth drawing WGs attention to this change.

I agree with Ralph on this one: topics are related and putting a 
reference shouldn't hurt, if only to preempt an obvious questions.

> The links to the "RDF/XML" code should say
> "RDF/XML" and not "RDF/XML abbrev"
> (I perhaps flatter myself that the reason you have written "RDF/XML
> abbrev" is following the name of the RDF/XML writer that I wrote for
> Jena. This name was taken from the 'abbrevated' RDF/XML syntax in the
> RDF Model & Syntax Rec, which has been superceded by RDF Syntax
> (Revised) which does not use this term)

fixed (for the other note as well)

> Most of the pictures lost their right edge when I printed them off.

no idea how to fix this.

> A-Box and T-Box should have different namespaces.
> =================================================
>
> The typical user would be importing the ontology and creating their
> instances in their own namespace (if the TF wanted to address this then
> also the individual names for the participants in the relationship are
> impacted)

well, I am not sure we really need this distinction for the note. given 
how small the examples are, I would be reluctant to break them up. I 
don't see any benefit of doing this.  I'll add this as an open issue as 
well though.

Natasha