Review of MT

Comments on Model Theory Editors draft
======================================
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0007/01-RDF_Mode
l_Theory.htm


Of course, overall unreserved compliments ...

I'll divide my comments into things that look to me like errors,
some stylistic points, and an enhancement request for next time.


Errors?  (For all of these I defer to Pat's judgement)
======================================================

Section 1.4, last line, I made it "none of the above"  instead of
"only one of the above".
[]

Section 2. Delete all comments to do with tidiness.
Delete the word "tidy" from the definition of skolemization.
[]

Counterexample to Anonymity lemma 1:

E =
<a> <b> _:c .
<a> <b> <c> .

E' =
<a> <b> <c> .
[]

Counterexample to Anonymity lemma 2:

E =
<a> <b> _:c .
_:c <d> <e> .
<a> <b> _:d .


E' =
<a> <b> _:c .
_:c <d> <e> .
[]

End of section 5 (penultimate para).
"Since these clearly ...".
No they don't.
I don't see
IEXT(I(rdf:type)) contains <x,I(rdf:Property)> iff x is in IP
(I think this should be explicitly added).
[]


Style comments
==============
(Note: Pat writes substantially more clearly than I do, and hence should
probably discard at least half of my style comments!)

(Excessive use of bracketed text. I (particularly) dislike the doubly
nested use of brackets).

I think deleting all brackets around complete paragraphs would be an
improvement. (Even your asides, Pat, deserve our full attention :) ).

In section 0.2 para "To indicate blank nodes ..." I suggest that the
bracketed text "(However, we ... brevity.)" be pulled out as a separate
unbracketed paragraph.

In section 1.2 para "We do not take ..." I suggest replacing "(If" by
"Alternatively, if" and deleting the matching paranenthesis.

In section 1.3 first para I found the bracketed text "(For a lexicalized
... lexicalization.)" unclear. I think it would be better somewhat more
concrete e.g. "For an interpretation of the graph corresponding to an
N-triple document it is normal to use a vocabulary consisting of the
set of urirefs occurringin the document."

When I got to section 1.3 I was surprised by XL - I had missed its
introduction. Should links or more headings be used to help the reader
around the document?

Section 2.2 first para repeats fourth para of section 0.2. It was OK,
but could possibly be improved ...

Section 5, just above the table, "Note, these ... ".
This refers to the old RDF Schema spec as if there were no other.
(Well there isn't!) But I understand our intent is that there will
be, and then this para will read quite strangely.
RDF Schema has not yet made it to full rec. largely because it needed
this change.

Enhancment Request
==================

I was disappointed that no account was offered of the relationship
between:

<a> <rdf:type> <rdf:bag> .
<a> <rdf:_1> <b> .
<a> <rdf:_2> <c> .

and

<a> <rdf:type> <rdf:bag> .
<a> <rdf:_2> <b> .
<a> <rdf:_1> <c> .

My belief is that we either need to offer such an account
or drop rdf:bagID from the syntax. In certain cases a parser
may produce either from identical input.

(cf:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0013.html
)




Jeremy

Received on Sunday, 13 January 2002 22:36:09 UTC