W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2005

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:37:44 +0000
Message-ID: <41E6B1E8.9080804@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
CC: zpan@cs.man.ac.uk, public-swbp-wg@w3.org

Brief initial in-line responses

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.

For Jeff to comment. I agree with Evan this is a bug, although I suspect 
this is intended, but it looks too ugly. i.e. I think this is formally 
correct usage but a rephrasing would improve the visual appearance.

> - 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.
> - 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,"?

Jeff to comment again.
> - Example 1D.  Cool.  Where and how can someone use this in OWL DL
> descriptions?

I don't think it can. In OWL Full this can be expressed as a class 

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

OK, will do.
> - 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.

correct, will change as you suggest

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

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

I've just done that, there is an editorial issue with the definition of 
eq on these values, but the basic rule is that this is the 
primitive-equality that you mentioned above.

> *****
> Evan

Received on Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:38:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:04 UTC