Semantic Review

Given the scope of my review activity

this review is somewhat light ...

I reviewed the copy dated 20th decemeber, plus the mapping rules of 30th 

Seems to be missing discussion on the new ontology versioning stuff; in 
particular it seems to be illegal to use any of it, since it uses the OWL 
namespace and the only things allowed in OWL DL from the OWL namespace are 
owl:Thing and owl:Nothing.

Section 2.

Para 6:
"These are roughly ...OWL/DL as defined in Section 5.3.1"
Hmm is that really where the definition of OWL/DL is, I would take 4.1 to be 
the definition.

Para 7:
"Named XML Schema non-list simple types ... name of the type."
Did we decide this?
I thought we decided not to do this.
(I support this text though).


Para 3 (excluding examples)
"If a URI reference .... as well as the ID of an individual."

While the abstract syntax and semantics may permit this, it seems disingenuous 
to discuss it given that we explicitly forbid it in the exchange syntax (see 
section 4.1).

Suggest change paragraph to apply the same restrictions as applied in 4.1

end of para 1:
Suggest replace:
"The syntax  here is set up to mirror the normal RDF/XML syntax."
"The syntax  here is set up to mirror striped RDF/XML syntax without the use 
of rdf:nodeID".

(I believe that in the last call candidate for RDF/XML syntax there is an 
appropriate link for striped RDF/XML syntax).

(near end of subsection)
[[Individual-valued properties that are transitive or that have transitive 
sub-properties, ...]]
i..e. all individual-valued properties, since the empty property is transitive 
and is a subproperty of any other property.
No suggested rewording though ...

Para 1.
Delete "much"
(it may be true, but it is probably better to let the reader judge).

Mapping rules
can triples of the form
<datatypeID> rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
be deleted from the transformation.

Para 3:
Suggest delete "Further, OWL/DL can be processed by efficient DL reasoners" 
given Ian's recent comments.

"not adverse" => "no adverse"

Appendix B.
Is this in need of updating?

How about referencing the newer RDF documents?


Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 12:16:57 UTC