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

Re: [OEP] Re: Typo in XML Representation for Approach 3 in CAV

From: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:37:49 -0400
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA6306C58.747F5A8F-ON85257083.007688E4-85257083.0076D1C5@us.ibm.com>

When we discussed this back in the day , we agreed that it was OK for the 
figures to have only a part of what is in the linked example files (the n3 
and owl) to make them easier to read.  I don't think there is any need to 
take out the seeAlso links or other "extraneous" rdf. I think the point 
about dc:identifier vs. owl:sameAs is debateable, and therefore shoudl be 
left as is.

What shoudl be fixed are the discrepencies between the figures and the 
example text. 

-Chris

swick@w3.org wrote on 09/21/2005 03:52:19 PM:
> 
> (Chris brought this to my attention in the context of 'can we edit
> this in place?'  I'm not sure of the answer yet to Chris' question,
> as it depends on how much the WG wants to change.)
> 
> At 04:32 PM 6/22/2005 -0400, Steven Wartik wrote [1]:
> 
> >Figure 3 has a class named "Book". However, the RDF/XML for approach 3 
has a class
> with ID "BookAboutAnimals".
> 
>    [1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jun/0069.html
> 
> There are several discrepancies between the figures, the N3 text
> in the body of the Classes As Values Note [2], and the associated
> N3 and RDF/XML files.  Steve (mis) identified one issue but there
> are others.
> 
>    [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-swbp-classes-as-values-20050405/
> 
> I don't claim the following is a complete list of issues with the
> .n3 and .owl code files:
> 
> In Approach 1 the N3 in the body of the document includes two
> rdfs:seeAlso statements that are not shown in Figure 1.  (The N3
> also includes :bookTitle properties that are implicit in the figure.)
> These seeAlso statements do not appear to add much to the
> example.  I also suspect that better practice for the intended
> semantics would be to use dc:identifier rather than rdfs:seeAlso.
> One of the two books has an owl:sameAs statement giving
> the same object URI; this almost certainly should be dc:identifier
> rather than owl:sameAs.
> 
> books2.n3, books2.owl, books3.n3, and books3.owl also contain these
> unnecessary rdfs:seeAlso statements.
> 
> books1.n3 has
> 
>   @prefix default:  <http://protege.stanford.edu/swbp/books1.owl#> .
> 
> whereas books1.owl has
> 
>    xml:base="http://protege.stanford.edu/swbp/books1.owl"
> 
> (note the missing '#' -- this is a bug.  Probably best to avoid
> xml:base for this purpose and use an xmlns declaration explicitly.)
> 
> books3.n3 fails to force an effective base URI of
> http://protege.stanford.edu/swbp/books1.owl#
> so it does not generate precisely the same triples as books3.owl
> 
> The real typo in books3.n3 and books3.owl (also books2.n3 and
> books2.owl) is that BookAboutAnimals is not explicitly declared to be 
rdfs:
> subClassOf :Book to follow with Figures 2 and 3.
> 
> I think the approach 3 range restriction on dc:subject would be
> more clear if the class AnimalSubject were defined, with that
> being the parentSubject of LionSubject.  That would then be
> the full analog of the approach 1 and 2 examples.
> 
> So I'm not sure how to respond to the comment in [1].  It's a bit
> off the mark but it did point out some true flaws in the N3 and
> RDF/XML files.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2005 21:37:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:12 UTC