- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 17:29:06 +0000
- To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Continuing my action 2002-12-13#7, as minuted:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0231.html
this is a further partial review of:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
from section 3.4 to the end of the document.
(My review comments up to section 3.3 are at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0324.html )
Many of my comments are marked [Editorial], which are merely issues I draw
to the editor's attention.
Some are marked [For discussion], which may or may not be problems with the
document, and request wider review.
Two are marked [Error], which I think need to be fixed.
Although I've read through the Lbase and proof appendices, I can't claim to
have fully understood all the details.
...
[Editorial, nit]
Section 3.4, para 3:
Says that "... L2V is defined ...", but earlier the document says in
section 1.3 says "it is impossible to give a sharp definition of LV".
Suggest "... L2V is required ..."
...
[Editorial]
Section 3.4, table following para 4:
Nothing is said here about the interpretation of forms like:
"sss"@lang^^ddd
(per http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-testcases-20030117/#literal)
Later, it is noted that language tags are ignored for all but rdf:XMLLiteral.
...
[Editorial]
Section 4.2, para 2:
States the rdfs-closure is obtained by adding the rdf-closure rules plus
those given. The subsequent text then goes on to duplicate some but not
all of the RDF-closure rules (rdf:nil rdf:type rdf:List and rule
'rdf1'). This seems mildly inconsistent style.
...
[Error]
Section 4.3, rule rdfD4 has a conclusion:
aaa rdfs:subClassOf eee .
that I think should read:
ddd rdfs:subClassOf eee .
...
[Error]
Appendix A, Lbase translation rules, 1st entry:
Should "prefixed with /" be "prefixed with \"?
...
[Editorial]
Appendix A, rdfs axioms:
The textual layout is confusing; for a while I thought there was an axiom:
(rdfs:Class(?x) and rdfs:Class(?y) and ((forall (?u) (?x(?u) implies
?y(?u))))
...
[For discussion]
Appendix A, rdfs axioms:
The axiom:
(rdfs:Literal(?x) and Lbase:String(?y)) implies rdfs:Literal(pair(?x,?y))
seems to suggest:
rdfs:literal( pair('chat','en'),'fr')
and other oddities -- should this axiom be:
(Lbase:String(?x) and Lbase:String(?y)) implies rdfs:Literal(pair(?x,?y))
and
(rdf:XMLLiteral(?x) and Lbase:String(?y)) implies rdfs:Literal(pair(?x,?y))
?
[or maybe:
(Lbase:XMLthing(?x) and Lbase:String(?y)) implies rdfs:Literal(pair(?x,?y))
for the second part. Er, I guess that would belong under rdfD axioms.]
...
[For discussion]
Appendix A, first rdfD axiom:
The conclusion ?x(?y)=L2V(?y,?x) is puzzling to me, because from earlier
axioms the result of ?x(?y) is Boolean, true if ?y is a ?x. But I
understood L2V to be a mapping from lexical space to value space, of which
the latter may be other than Boolean. Should that conclusion be:
?x(L2V(?y,?x))
?
You later say that use of a datatype name as a function name has a
different meaning, but that seems to be ambiguous with use of a URI as a
functor indicating that it is an rdf:Class (from the 2nd rdfs axiom).
(I've not read Lbase recently, so maybe I'm missing something here.)
...
[For discussion/editorial]
Appendix A:
Does Lbase distinguish between URIs as functions, as in rdfs:Class(?x) and
other auxilliary functions such as rdf-member(nnn)? I assume so, because
it doesn't make sense that rdf-member(nnn) means that rdf-member is a
class. I find this aspect likely to be confusing.
...
[Editorial]
Appendix B:
For consistency (of style), I think this should be marked "Informative".
...
[Editorial]
Appendix B, para preceding "skolemization lemma":
Having been involved with this group for a while, I think I understand what
you mean by "skolemization of a query", and why it represents a different
query. But is this a common usage that would be understood by anyone who
knows something of Skolemization?
...
[Editorial]
Appendix B, proof of "RDF closure lemma":
What is this HP that pops up? I don't see a definition.
...
[Editorial]
Appendix B, proof of "RDFS closure lemma":
The terminating comment "(sketch) QED" seems a bit odd to me.
...
[Editorial]
Appendix C:
Is this informational or normative? I'm not sure, though I don't recall
the normative parts of the document *depending* on definitions given here.
...
[Editorial]
Appendix C, Class:
The phrasing here "as their rdf:type" seems to hint this is the resource's
only rdf:type.
Suggest "as an rdf:type".
...
[Editorial]
Appendix C, Logic:
Is logic truly limited to a formal *language*? I have always thought it
also encompassed the ways in which the language can be used.
Suggest: "A formal language which expresses propositions, with rules for
expressing relationships between propositions so expressed; also, the
study of such languages."
...
[Editorial]
Appendix C, Ontological:
This is a term whose definitions never meant anything to me until I started
to understand something of ontology from its practical uses. For myself,
understanding advanced when I got the idea that it was like applying data
type like concepts to real world (non data) objects.
I was going to make a suggestion, but I'm sure it will be in some sense
wrong; e.g. "Concerned with kinds or classes of things, and relationships
between them". I'm not sure what to suggest, but if the terms based on
'ontology' are to be introduced, I can't help feeling that there is little
benefit unless the introduction goes usefully beyond the bare dictionary
definition; e.g. the Concise Oxford Dictionary has "ontology: the branch
of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being", which did nothing to
enlighten me.
...
[Editorial]
Appendix C, Proposition:
Suggest: "A statement or expression that is true or false".
...
[Editorial]
Appendix C, Resource:
The definition given here seems to be very particular to its use with RDF,
in a glossary which contains many terms that are drawn from much wider
usage. Suggest: qualify the description in some way, e.g. "As used with
RDF, ...".
...
The end.
#g
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 12:25:10 UTC