W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

s+as review (fwd)

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:19:47 +0100 (BST)
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304251118270.29187-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Doh! just made teh same mistake again.

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:18:09 +0100 (BST)
From: Jan Grant <cmjg@bristol.ac.uk>
To: Undisclosed recipients:  ;
Subject: s+as review

Resent, failed to add rdfcore to recipients on Wednesday.

2.1 para beginning "names of ontologies..."

Is this the first time dereferencing of web documents has got into an
RDF or OWL spec? Check PatH this is ok [this comment not for final
submission] I _like_ it that there's a 'webification' of relationships
between ontologies, however sketched it is.

[just a thumbs-up] the 'literate' style used in presenting the BNF is

"In OWL, as in RDF, a datatype denotes the set of data values that is
the value space for the datatype."

- Not true of RDF? A datatype can be treated as a class in RDF - the
class corresponds to its value space, but not the same thing. Strike "as
in RDF"

2.2 Facts

"Normal Form C" - has this restriction been relaxed now? Check JJC.

"The second kind of fact is used to make individual identifiers be the
same or pairwise distinct." Nit - same/distinct denotations?

2.3 Axioms
[editorial] WG -> working group; don't hyphenate "more-neutral"
[editorial] "The only information in axiom for them is annotations."
Insert "the". & throughout
[editorial] suggest "dataValuedPropertyID" and
"individualValuedPropertyID" (different intercapping) BNF for axiom
	| 'EquivalentClasses(' description { description } ')'
[Editorial] Other 'equivalentX' productions specify a minimum of two
equivalent Xs. Para 1.
[editorial] "As well," suggest "In addition," instead.

Definition of datatype theory
[editorial] stumbled over the parenthetical "(non-disjoint)" - is it
necessary? Would suggest to strike.

Definition of OWL Vocabulary
May have missed it, but don't you want to keep rdf:type out of the
various "V_x"s too?

[editorial, accessibility] This is a nit, but when I first viewed this
document, the "I"s and "l"s were indistinguishable. Maybe italicise the

3.2 and elsewhere
[nit] It may be in standard use, in which case ignore this comment, but
the terminology 'oneOf' for sets of singletons doesn't seem to express
(when read informally in Engligh) its intended behaviour. If it's not
too late would replace with 'singletons' or some other term.

3.2 [nit]
restriction(p x_1 ... x_n)
Suddest adding ", for n > 1" since n=1 cases are dealt with below this.

3.3 [lauds] I like the layout here.

Unnamed ontologies: informally, multiple Annontations on an unnamed
ontology don't need to be satisfied by the same x according to this
table. Don't think that's right.

[typo] "abstarct" in the first para.

[note] While the abstract syntax naturally associates (via syntactic
nesting) ontologies with all their directives, no such association is
made in teh RDF graph expression of the ontology (apart from
Annotations). I can see why this is the case.

I'm not really sold on the translation table; I think the meaning of it
is unclear. However, I'm stumped as to an alternative compact expression
of the translation into RDF Graph form so feel free to ignore this

5.1 and throughout
[editorial, nit++] inconsistent capitalisation rules applied to
headings. Would capitalise "Universe" here.

5.2, the "Note". The term "constructor" is not defined in the document
and is only used in one other place.

Apendix A.1
Phew. I've been over this proof three times and it looks
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 06:22:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC