Re: AS & S Review: overview

[...]

> > Abstract, Introduction, Abstract Syntax:
> > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0204.html
> > pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0289.html
> > Remaining points: 
> > - the abstract does not yet contain OWL Full
> OWL Full is now mentioned.
> > - the distinction between normative and informative could be
> >   made more clear in the main parts of the document
> > Peter is not aware that this is needed, I leave this to the chairs 
> > to comment.
> I believe that each informative part is prominently so labelled.

In the version of 10 February, neither any of the five main sections,
nor any of its subsections, is prominently labeled informative, 
so I conclude that all of Section 5 is normative.
This does not seem to be consistent with the sentence in the
introduction stating that for OWL DL ontologies, the direct model
theory is "authoritative" and the RDFS-compatible model is
"secondary".

> 
> > Direct model theoretic semantics:
> > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0205.html
> > pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0290.html
> > Very small remaining point:
> > implies instead of the symbol -> should also be done consistently 
> > in the remainder of the document.
> I can no longer find any uses of -> in the document.

See two tables in Section 5.2 where they still appear: those on 
domain/range and
clases/datatypes/properties
> 
> > Mapping to RDF graphs:
> > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0206.html
> > No reaction by Peter
> > Main point (see URL):
> > - more explanation before mapping table needed
> >
> > OWL DL as RDF graphs:
> > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0227.html
> > No reaction by Peter
> > Main points (see URL):
> > - reorder/rewrite material so that it becomes intelligible
> > - include OWL Lite
> > Jeremy also reviewed this part, agrees with these points,
> > jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0332.html
> > and has a proposal for an alternative:
> > jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0356.html
> I believe that Jeremy  is going to propose new versions of these parts 
of
> the document.

What about the correspondence theorem in Section 5 and Appendix A?
You made updates to this appendix, while it depends on your version of
the mapping from abstract syntax to RDF.

> 
> > RDFS-compatible OWL semantics:
> > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0288.html
> > pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0291.html
> > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0315.html
> > pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0393.html
> > jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0415.html
> > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0420.html
> > Remaining points, mainly:
> > - RDF Core needs to change definition of D-interpretation
> Agreed.
> > - I read definition of IC/ICEXT in RDF Semantics differently
> > from Peter and Jeremy
> We do.

I'll come back to this separately.

> > - Small, additional assumptions need to be added to definition of OWL
> > interpretation because of the addition of the set IP to the definition
> > of RDF interpretations, and, in my view, also because
> > of the IC/ICEXT point
> The denotations of all OWL syntactic properties have been added to IP.

It took quite some effort to convince you of the need for this.

> > - The definition of the semantics of the cardinality restrictions
> > needs to be completed.
> I claim that they are complete as they stand.

I'll come back to this separately.

> 
> > Appendix A.1: Correspondence between Abstract OWL and OWL DL
> > hth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0424.html
> > Main points:
> > - more details needed for readability
> I entertain offers to expand the proof.
> > - the proof should be made up to date with changes to definitions
> I believe that it is now up to date.
> > - the proof does not incorporate annotations and imports
> Agreed.
> > - nobody except Peter confirmed the correctness of the proof, or 
> >   did Ian confirm this, implicitly?:
> > ian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0401.html
> I believe that both Ian and Jeff Pan have signed off on the proof.
> 

The proof is large.  It involves, in one way or another, most of the
bits in the four main sections of the document: abstract syntax, abstract
semantics, mapping to RDF graphs, RDF-compatible semantics.
Moreover, the proof involves many bits from the RDF Semantics document.
Moreover, part of all this input to the proof is not yet stable (in 
particular
the mapping).  I must confess that I find it strange that somebody
can "sign off on" this proof without mentioning the proof explicitly
in a review, and, apparently, without mentioning any of the points
I raised about this appendix.

[...]

> 
> peter
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 10:14:11 UTC