Re: [XSCH, ALL] some detailed comments from datatype note review

Hi Evan

this is the first of two messages attempting to 'close the loop'
with you on your datatype review.

I will provide links and text from this version of the note


which differs from the latest editors' draft only in having '%%'
marking changed text from the version you reviewed.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20050127-changes/

I'll respond to your more general comments similarly in a separate message.

Response are in-line below

Jeremy

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:
> I am still working on some more general comments about the XSCH
> Datatype note [1] authored by Jeremy Carroll and Jeff Pan.  However,
> here are my detailed notes.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/
> 
> *****
> 
> Detailed comments:
> 
> - Section 1.3: Editorial/presentation issue - In the definition for an
> "OWL datatype interpretation" are the words "for each supported
> datatype URIref u w.r.t. D" intended to be subscript?  They rendered
> this way on every browser I tried.
> 
moved to appendix A.2
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20050127-changes/#sec-owl-dt
text reads:
[[
[Definition:] An OWL DL datatype interpretation w.r.t. to a datatype map 
D is a pair (LV,ED), where the datatype domain LV %% (only) contains the 
value spaces for each datatype in D and PL (the value space for plain 
literals, i.e., the union of the set of Unicode strings and the set of 
pairs of Unicode strings and language tags) and ED is a datatype 
interpretation function, which has to satisfy the following conditions:
]]



> - Section 1.4: In the definition for a "unary datatype group" the term
> "primitive base datatype" is used.  What is the qualifier "primitive"
> meant to convey here?  It seems to me that these are merely datatypes
> in the group which are not derived from other datatypes in the
> group. "base datatype" seems sufficient to convey this.  The current
> wording could be interpreted to denote XML Schema primitive datatypes,
> which is inconsistent with the example.
> 

No changes made, now moved to appendix B
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20050127-changes/#sec-dl-dt

> - In the definition for "unary datatype expressions" the text reading,
> " the set of G unary datatype expressions," looks incorrect.  Should
> it read, "the set of unary datatype expressions for G,"?
> 

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20050127-changes/#sec-dl-dt
now changed to

[[
[Definition:] Let G be a unary datatype group, the set %% unary datatype 
expressions for G, abbreviated Dexp(G), is inductively defined as follows:
]]

> - Example 1D.  Cool.  Where and how can someone use this in OWL DL
> descriptions?
Now
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20050127-changes/#example_C
no changes made

> 
> - Section 2.3.  Suggest adding a transition after the first
> paragraph.  Something like: "There are some issues with this
> solution."

added intervening para:
[[
%% There are some issues with this proposal for the use case of naming 
datatypes for use in the Semantic Web.
]]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20050127-changes/#sec-xscd

> 
> - Section 3.5: In this section the term "primitive-equality" is used
>   to (I think) refer to equality as described in section 3.4.  If this
>   is true, then the term should be introduced in section 3.4 and used
>   consistently thereafter when referring to that concept.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20050127-changes/#sec-values-differ
changed section heading for 3.4. to
Primitive Equality: All Primitive Types Differ
added text
[[
%%We will call the resulting equality as primitive equality.
]]
in first para of section

> 
> - should the subsection entitled "Using eq in RDF and OWL" be better
>   titled "The Semantics of Using eq in RDF and OWL"?

change made as suggested
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20050127-changes/#sec-values-eq

> 
> - There is still a note to the editor in this section, "@@@ todo
>   datetime stuff - I think they are all incomparible should check."
> 

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20050127-changes/#sec-values-eq
checked and added text:
[[
%% For the date and time datatypes, eq behaves like primitive equality
]]


> *****
> 
> Evan
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 17:31:48 UTC