[Fwd: Re: outline of semantics document]

[the machine asked me to verify that
this wasn't spam, since it came from
an unrecognized address...]

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Forwarded message 1

  • From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:29:41 -0500 (EST)
  • Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: outline of semantics document
  • To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
  • Message-Id: <200210282127.56465.jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> The outline and, in fact, the contents, can be found at 

>   http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics.html

> or by following the links in that document.


some quick high level comments ... I don't expect to look at the detail for a 
week or two.

1: I am surprised that the proof in the appendix is "normative" - a quick 
glance did not reveal quite what that was intended to mean.

2: I was surprised at the use of N-triples (in section 4)
I note that: the use of q-names is not actually allowed, (in the OWL test 
cases I think I specifically use N-triple augmented with q-names), and that 
you omit discussion of all the literal escaping stuff.
I would more have expected the use of triples and the graph abstract syntax.
I believe that the phrasing in the RDF Model Theory has avoided these pitfalls 
by being somehow 'clearly' at a more abstract level.
i.e. it would be mistaken to respond to these comments by fixing ntriple, or 
avoiding qnames in the rules, or by defining escaping algorithms - all these 
isses are uninteresting at the OWL level.

Are you looking for detailed review at this stage? If so I think I will be 
able to for 11th Nov.


Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 17:03:51 UTC