Re: RDFTM comments: Swick

I am satisfied with the response to my comments.  Good work, editors.

A few specific notes follow.  I also see the addition of 3 more editors
to the document.  Great to acknowledge individuals who had
substantial editorial control.   Also glad to see postings to the WG
list from Fabio and Lars Marius, and of course Valentina also
was present at the Boston meeting.  It would be good if Nicola
were to speak to this draft in the WG list so there is record of his
also having acknowledged being an editor.

At 03:26 PM 3/18/2005 +0100, Steve Pepper wrote:
>* RDFTM-RS001: Accepted with comments
>| It is important to consider RDF and OWL together when the combination
>| addresses some of the translation issues. Otherwise a reader may be
>| misled into thinking that some aspect has not been treated by either
>| Topic Maps or SemWeb community when in fact it has. For example, in
>| 2.2.1 under 'identity' we find the statement "RDF only allows a single
>| identifier". In the specific contexts OWL sameAs and
>| inverseFunctionalProperty can permit multiple identifiers. Under
>| "Association roles" the parenthetical remark makes the implication
>| that OWL is separate whereas I think the full utility of any
>| translation will certainly use OWL.
>Greater care is being taken to distinguish between issues that were
>seen to be a problem before the advent of OWL and the today's

The revised text in 4.3.1 nicely deals with the specific example
cited in my comments.

The final sentence of section 1.3 is a sufficient disclaimer regarding
other quoted limitations.  If we find quotations that could be misleading
where this disclaimer forgotten, we could footnote those in a future
version of the document.

>* RDFTM-RS004: Rejected
>| In the 2.3.2 RDF2TM test case it might be useful to add foaf:homePage
>| in order to expose the features of Topic Maps subject identifiers (at
>| least, I expect that would do so.)
>The test case has been changed in order to represent the same
>information content as the TM2RDF test case. The editors feel that it
>is important that the example remain simple. It is not intended to
>cover every aspect of translations, or even the most important.


>* RDFTM-RS005: Accepted

and nicely handled.

>* RDFTM-RS007: Accepted with comments
>There is indeed a better model! It is referred to as the TMDM and is
>now cited earlier in the Survey.

indeed, in the last paragraph of 1.3.


Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:21:45 UTC