- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:57 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I reviewed:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
Last Modified: 07/18/03 16:55:56
221233 bytes
Summary
Having read through in detail, I'm happy with this document.
Although I am not a model theoretician, this is comprehensible to me
and I feel the changes reflect fairly the updates to the LC version
in what might be called substantial editorial changes along with
addressing the last call and post-last-call issues and decisions.
As such, in my opinion, it seems suitable for proceeding along the
recommendation track rather than as another last call draft.
Some points:
* I'm not so clear on the exact correctness of the axiomatic triples,
I'd need somebody with code to check these.
* Similarly with the 7.x entailment rules I'd want other eyes or
running code for them.
* Not reviewed: mapping to lbase or proofs of lemmas appendices.
I would be happy if these were either made informative or dropped.
-----
Detail
Change List
This should go to a Changes section appendix and ordered somehow - by
section changed or issue (with pointers into the changed sections).
Globally
I think the advice I saw on style means that URIref should
be spelt out URI reference everywhere.
simple literal=>plain literal
You don't need to write in the third person ("the editor").
Abstract
OK
Status
Not reviewed - this will change.
However the status will need to carefully reflect the changes.
Table of Contents
You should label any informative appendixs here too with "(Informative)"
Are appendixes A & B part of the document?
0. Introduction
0.1 Specifying a formal semantics: scope and limitations
P1
Recommend w3c style:
"see the RDF Concepts document [RDF-CONCEPTS]"
=>
"see _RDF Concepts_ [RDF-CONCEPTS]" where _RDF Concepts_
is a direct link to the concepts doc
P2
CSS style. I note 'semantics' is a glossary word and linked
only via mouseover. It would be nice if this was clear visually
P3
All about model theory till the last sentence:
"This provides the maximal freedom for implementations while
preserving a globally coherent notion of meaning which allows RDF
to be used to transmit content."
I think that would be better split.
"This provides the maximal freedom for implementations while
preserving a globally coherent notion of meaning.
These features of model theory are appropriate for specifying RDF's
semantics in transmitting content."
or something like that. It might even be better moved to a later
paragraph since P4 continues describing model theory.
The 'vocabulary entailment' links do not go to anything.
P4
unchanged since last call
P5
"This document gives two versions of the same semantic theory:
directly, and also (in an informative appendix)"
directly - also might benefit from adding "(normative)" to
counterpoint the informative.
link to the appendix, give it's title.
The red text might be better given as an indented (Normative) Note.
P6-P8
unchanged/minor word changes since last call.
P7 - DAML+OIL not DAML? OWL - which document are you citing, give
it's full title.
P7 RDF graphs - should this not link to the definitions in RDF Concepts?
0.2 Graph Syntax
The editorial changes are OK
0.3 Graph Definitions
P1
"RDF Graph" points to graph syntax in concepts, not the definition
term: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-rdf-graph (as used
in 0.2 P1)
P4
"fixed by the RDF semantic rules"
=> please link or cite to this
"typed literal containing a URIref in V"
presumably also explained elsewhere, please link to the (later) defn.
The last sentence also describes this partially.
Maybe replace
"A name is from a vocabulary V if it is in V or is a typed literal
containing a URIref in V."
with
"A name is from a vocabulary V if it is a URIref in V or is a typed
literal containing a URIref in V."
for consistency?
Maybe:
"The names of a graph are all the names which occur in the graph."
=>
"The names of a graph is a set of all the names which occur in the graph."
since the next sentence says it is a set.
P5
"set of names" should be italic not red
P6-P7
OK
P8
"A proper instance ...
or two blank nodes in the graph have been identified."
I know what you mean here but that last clause doesn't work well
for me. You want to say that two blank nodes have been "merged"
I think identified isn't suffient.
P9-P14
Ok
P13
"<ex:a> <ex:p> _:x."
=>
"<ex:a> <ex:p> _:x ."
i.e. separate the final term from the '.'
P15
OK
P16
"see the RDF syntax specification [RDF-SYNTAX]."
"see _RDF/XML Syntax (Revised)_ [RDF-SYNTAX]."
and link to the document
1 Interpretations
1.1 Technical Notes
This is a very generic title - Why are they technical or Notes?
Maybe something like:
Model theory technical approach
MT Restrictions and extensions
?
P1-P4
OK
P2 - Intensional glossary term link is wrong - it goes to #glossMonotonic
1.2 Urirefs, Resources and Literals.
P1-P3
OK
P3 'entity' is called out as a special word, but has no more meaning
to me than "thing" or "thingy". Maybe that's OK as a familiar term
for anything?
P4
Remove the red colour.
Link "section 3.4" to the section.
P5
"Urirefs"=>"URIrefs" or whatever.
You are using "simple literals" here. Earlier in 0.3, you used
plain literal. The correct term from RDF concepts is plain.
The exclusive canonical XML link is broken here and in the
references. Should be http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/
"exclusive Canonical XML" => "_Exclusive XML Canonicalization_"
i.e. with a link, wrong title
"RDF concepts and abstract syntax document[RDF-CONCEPTS]" =>
"_RDF Concepts And Abstract Syntax_ [RDF-CONCEPTS]"
i.e. with a link, capitalised
1.3 Interpretations
P1-P3
OK
P4
not "postponed until later sections" but
"described in sections X.Y" with a link
P5
Since you have several types of tables coming up, I don't think
colour is sufficient to differentiate them (accessibility - use of
red & green particularly bad!). Add titles to the top such as for
the next table P6 as suggested below.
More red text, needing removal and adding links to the sections.
P6 (table)
Give it a title or some way to refer to it (maybe a number)
"Semantic condition 1 : Simple interpretation" ?
Using 'literal character strings' however earlier you only defined
'character strings' (1.2 P4)
P7
OK
P8
OK. Maybe add a forward pointer to when datatype info is inconsistent.
P9
OK
1.4 Denotations of Ground Graphs
P1-P3
OK
P4
unchanged since LC
P5-P6
OK, minor typos changed since LC
Maybe move "IP={1}" to a line on it's own.
It seems odd to have it at the end of the IR line (although both
are sets)
P7-P10 ("For example")
unchanged since LC
P11
spelling: "datyped interpretations"
and add a link to where this will be ruled out.
P12-P18
OK
P19
In red again. I'd remove "the fact".
grammar: "in [the] predicate position"
1.5. Blank Nodes as Existential Variables
P1
unchanged
please link to the appendix with the proof
P2
OK, minor rewordings
P3 (semantic condition)
unchanged
P4
OK, minor rewordings
P5-P10 ("Note that")
unchanged
P11 (new para)
Merging was defined earlier formally, maybe link in here?
Maybe link forward from there since blank nodes & merging is
important to know about.
2. Simple Entailment between RDF graphs
P1
minor changes OK
grammar: "and a set S of (simply) entails a graph E if "
probably should be "and a set S (simply) entails a graph E if "
P2-P5
minor changes, OK
P5: "the appendix" => replace with right name of appendix
"Appendix B: Proofs of Lemmas"
P6-P9
no changes since LC
P10 ("This means")
minor words, OK
P11
"example given in section 1.5" - add a link (& title maybe)
P12-P13
minor words, OK
P14 ("The interpolation lemma completely ...")
"check that there is some instance of the entailed graph which is a
subset of the merge of the original set of graphs."
Isn't that a set membership check? (ie member<>set rather than
set<>set, a subset relation) so shouldn't that be:
"check that there is some instance of the entailed graph which is a
member of the merge of the original set of graphs."
P15-P21
OK - rewordings fine
3. Interpreting the RDF Vocabulary
[Hmm, all new here!]
P1
OK
P2
missing: rdf:value
It's still there, we didn't remove it :)
P3
"RDF concepts and abstract syntax document[RDF-CONCEPTS]"
=> "_RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax_ [RDF-CONCEPTS]", link & title
earlier (1.2 last para) you used "XML data" rather than
"The corresponding value" or he "XML value of".
Yous seem to have "XML data values" also in red.
P4
I think I'd prefer to see "I of (V union crdV)" as in the LC doc,
since this can be hard to read depending on how the web browser
breaks the lines.
Hmm, it isn't clear that these are 3 tables, at least on my
screen. You must either alter the formatting or preferable do that
as well as give them titles.
P5-P7 (3 tables/conditions)
OK, titles please
P8-P9
OK. I note that rdf:value does appear here !
P10 "The first condition"
OK. This paragraph might be better directly after the tables and
before the axiomatic triples.
P11
"section 3.3 below" => link please
P12
OK
P13
again, prefer to have the sets on separate lines
P14 (figure 2)
OK
P15-P15
OK, minor changes since LC
3.1. RDF entailment
P1
prefer (S union E)
link section 2 wording
P2
link lemmas in section 2
P3
OK
P4
link to 7.2
3.2. Reification, Containers, Collections and rdf:value
P1-P2
OK
3.2.1 Reification
P1
minor change since LC
P2-P9
unchanged
P10 ("and y is I(aaa)...")
OK (New last 2 sentences)
P11-P13
OK, minor word changes
P14-P17
unchanged
3.2.2 RDF containers
P1-P6
minor word changes OK
P7-P9 (example)
unchanged
P10-P11
minor word changes OK
P12-P16
unchanged
3.2.3 RDF collections
P1-P3
minor word changes OK
P4 (example)
OK - replacement of rdf:type rdf:list with rdf:first
P5
minor word changes OK
P6-P8
OK - replacement of rdf:type rdf:list OK.
P9 ("Also, RDF")
minor word changes OK
P10
OK - replacement of rdf:type rdf:list OK.
P11 ("It is also possible")
minor word changes OK
P12
minor word changes OK
P13
OK but might be improved by using "any subject of the rdf:first
property" etc.
3.2.4 rdf:value
P1 "RDF primer" => "_RDF Primer_" with link, title
P2
ah, disclaimers. You don't need to write in the third person so
obliquely this is meant to be a WG document, so maybe
change "the editor is unable" to "it is not possible"
Personally I don't like this dire warning, since rdf:value has been
in the RDF M&S with a decent use case. But I guess I lost that one.
4. Interpreting the RDFS Vocabulary
P1-3
minor word changes OK
P4
changes OK
"table below" => link it when you make the semantic condition table
have a title, linke
P5
changes OK
P6 first table
unchanged since LC, apart from if and only if :)
P7-P8
range/domain changes OK (paragarphs seemed to just be swapped
around from LC version)
P9-P10
subPropertyOf changes OK
P11-P12
subClassOf changes OK
P13
unchanged
P14
I think this is OK, datatypes hurt my head.
P15-P16 axiomatic triples
These seem in rather randon order that is difficult to compare. I
assume this is just the old ones + the rdf ones.
P17-P18
words ok
P19
I can't confirm these are OK, they look plausible.
P20
OK
4.1 Extensional Semantic Conditions (Informative)
P1
OK
P2-P5 (tables)
I recognise from LC version and match them
P6
OK
P7
link to 7.3
4.2 A Note on rdfs:Literal
(was 3.3.1)
P1-8
OK minor changes from LC
4.3 RDFS Entailment
(was in 4.2)
P1
OK, link to section 2 wording
P2-P4
OK
5. Datatyped Interpretations
[substantially different text, diffing impossible]
P1-P8 ("In stating")
OK
P9
"RDF concepts and abstract syntax document[RDF-CONCEPTS]"
=> "_RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax_ [RDF-CONCEPTS]", link & title
Link XSD part 2 also
This reads as if XSD are built into these semantics rather than
being one compatible set of datatypes. I'd prefer to see something
along those lines here. Maybe a new paragraph here and continuing
with the "The datatype map" sentence.
P10-P11 (XSD datatypes)
xsd:NMTOKEN is allowed but xsd:NMTOKENS isn't?
The rest of the list matches XSD datatypes OK.
P12 ("If D is a datatype map")
P13
OK
P14-P18 (tables)
[[if <aaa,x> is in D then for any typed literal "sss"^^ddd with I(ddd) = x ,
ifsss is in the lexical space of x then IL("sss"^^ddd) =
L2V(x)(sss), otherwise IL("sss"^^ddd) is not in LV
]]
couple of things:
1) typo: "ifsss" => "if sss"
2) what is "L2V(x)(sss)" ? L2V(x) gives you a set (value space)
so what does "(sss)" do to that set?
P19-P20
OK
P21 ("The third condition")
this is the point that you were refering to earlier about
non-literal values being present in LV and should be linked to from
there.
Whereas here you say (on bad xsd-interpretations):
[[sss ... is not in ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal))" ]]
in condition 3 you say (for the general D-interpretation case):
[[IL("sss"^^ddd) is not in LV]
are those the same?
P22-P28
OK
P28
"Datatype clashes and assertions that ill-typed literals are of type
rdfs:Literal are the only inconsistencies recognized by this model
theory."
This confused me for a while but is correct. It would IMHO read
better the other way around:
"The only inconsistencies recognized by this model theory are
"datatype clashes and assertions that ill-typed literals are of type
rdfs:Literal."
P29-P33
It seems OK but I'm wondering why this is here? Why do you need to
talk about larger datatype maps or special graphs where all URIrefs
are datatypes? Is it in order to get to the point at the end of
the last paragraph " adopting this requirement as a formal
entailment principle would violate the general monotonicity lemma"
Well, I felt, so what? :) If you added other requirements, that
might happen!
5.1 D-entailment
OK
6. Monotonicity of semantic extensions
[wasn't that what you were discussing at the end of section 5?]
OK
7. Entailment rules
OK
7.1 Simple Entailment Rules
se1 & se2 - nnn is a blank node _identifier_ not a blank node
or stick with bnodeID
P3
"on the same URIref or literal bbb or vvv"
By your definition, bbb cannot be a literal only a URIref
maybe: "on the same URIref bbb or literal vvv" ?
P4-P10
OK
7.2 RDF Entailment Rules
rdf1 as in LC
rdf2 seems OK
RDF entailment lemma -
OK, but link to the rdf axiomatic triples by section & link. Link
to proof.
7.3 RDFS Entailment Rules
rdfs1 ok
rdfs2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5 (was 5a), 6 (was 5b), 7 (was 6), 8 (was 7a), 9,
rdfs10 (was 7b), rdfs11 (was 8), rdfs12 (was 10)
in LC doc
rdfs13 ok
RDFS entailment lemma -
OK, but link to the rdf axiomatic triples by section & link. Link
to proof.
rest is OK
7.3.1 Extensional Entailment Rules
Surely this section is Informative since 4.1, on which it is based,
is informative?
P1 add link to section 4.1.
These rules match some of the old ones (pre the weaking) such as
rdfs2a, rdfs3a.
ext1 to ext9 seem plausible but I'm not worrying about them since
they are informative.
7.4 Datatype Entailment Rules
(was 4.3)
P1
minor changes OK
P2
changes OK
P3
spelling - "dataype"
P4 (rdfD1)
change OK
P5-P10 (rdfD4)
minor wording (not rules) changes OK
P11-P14
minor changes OK
P15-P20 (examples)
minor changes OK
P21
OK
Appendix A: Translation into Lbase
(status? informative?)
Not reviewed but looks like a lot of changes.
Appendix B: Proofs of Lemmas
(status? informative?)
Not reviewed but looks like a lot of changes.
Appendix C: Glossary of Terms
The minor word changes since LC are fine.
References
[XML-C14N] link broken
should be http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/
The style needs a bit of polish. You need to have 'latest version'
links for the W3C documents. See the other WDs for examples (to cut
and paste!)
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 07:22:15 UTC