W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2006

[XSCH, ADMIN] document review and risk for next telecon

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:24:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200603032324.SAA16693@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

Per my action [1], I have reviewed the latest version of the XML Schema
Datatypes in RDF and OWL document [2].  The resulting comments are detailed
below.  They are all minor, and I suggest that the publication of this
document be approved for a version that includes any changes that the
editors deem appropriate to respond to my comments.  My comments mostly
identify a few typos.

Next week, I will be at the Semantic Technology conference so I may
have difficulty in attending the SWBPD telecon on Monday.  My
suggestion above is effectively a motion to publish, so I should not
need to be present for a resolution on this document to proceed.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-swbp-minutes.html#action19
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20060127/


Comments on XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL

Editors' Draft 27 January 2006

I read and commented on this document prior to its initial publication
as a working draft.  These new comments are the result of a review of
latest draft which has evolved from that earlier work.  While the
first publication was a discussion document which layed out the issues
with datatypes in RDF and OWL and presented various solutions, this
document happily provides some guidance to users of Semantic Web
languages in how to use and include XML schema datatypes.

Sections 1 through 3.4 are quite an easy read, leading the reader
through the maze of relevant specifications.  My only complaints here
are a few minor typos:

 Section 2.3, end of para 6: "the ::adultAge shows which is type is
 being identified."  Remove the first 'is'.

 Section 3.4.2, para 1, end of first sentence: "and entailments do not
 follow, even when counterintuitive."  Shouldn't that last bit read: 
 "even when this is counterintuitive."?  Otherwise, it sounds like the
 entailments are counterintuitive, so why should they follow?

 Same section, 1st paragraph of text under the heading "hexBinary and
 base64Binary", the whole 1st sentence reads: "The final case where
 the value spaces of two XML Schema simple types appear to the same
 are for xsd:hexBinary and xsd:base64Binary."  Suggest changing 
 "appear to the same are" to "appear the same is" since "is" refers to
  the "final case" and not the "types".

On Section 3.5, I have a question regarding SPARQL, not (necessarily)
a comment on the document.  Your example here does not raise this
issue, but given that we have canonicalization of values of XML Schema
datatypes, can we assume it will be always applied to all SemWeb XML
datatype values prior to a SPARQL query?  Also, will it be applied to
values assigned to variables in SPARQL queries such as ?size in this
example?  In other words would similar queries to the example which
differ only in the FILTER clause, such as having a FILTER (?size =
01.3) . or FILTER (?size = 1.300) . return identical results?  I am
hoping the answer is yes.

Section 3.6, first sentence has a typo:

"A difference approach" should read: "A different approach", I assume.

Section 3.6, question

Is approximate equality symmetric?  My reading of the definition is
that it is not.  Since equality was described as being reflexive,
transitive, and symmetric earlier in the document, shouldn't
approximate equality also be described with respect to these
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 23:24:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:18 UTC