- From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:44:56 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFBFF86E9E.8C52AA4E-ONC1256CAE.00507BF9-C1256CAE.005C2E91@diamond.philips.com>
In my view, the process of transformation from abstract syntax to RDF graphs is not yet sufficiently explained in the text preceding the table. It becomes more clear when the table is inspected, but I believe that the text before the table should make several things more explicit. I hope that my next comments on individual sentences in the current text can help to develop a more systematic and complete and explicit description of how the translation to triples is specified using 1) an ontology in abstract syntax form 2) the transformation table 3) the abstract syntax -- "The left column of the table gives a piece of syntax (S), the center column gives its transformation (T(S)), and the right column gives a node identifier that is the main node of the transformation (M(T(S))), but only for syntactic constructs that can occur as pieces of directives. " It becomes clear only much later what the main node is introduced for: "When the transformation of a component is used in a node position of an triple, the transformation of the construct is part of the production (but only once per production) and the main node of that transformation should be used for that node of the triple." It should be added here that the "transformation of the construct" produces as a kind of side effect other triples in addition to those of the transformation currently expanded. Instead of "node position", you can even say "object position" here because this never happens on a subject position. "For many directives these transformation rules call for the transformation of components of the directive using other transformation rules." It is not made clear that not only one needs other transformation rules (from the same table), but one also needs to go back to the abstract syntax in Section 2 to do other transformations before one can exploit other transformations from the same table. It would be helpful to give a brief example with the first production where these subtilities play a role, which is the first production for Individual: Here the abstract syntax shows that T(type1) expands to T(description) which in turn expands, again by means of the abstract syntax, to T(one of six possibilities), each of which can be handled using the transformation table. T(value1) expands to either T(individualId), T(individual) or T(dataLiteral), each of which can be handled using the transformation table. The transformation table uses a special font for "tokens" like "Annotation", "Imports". However, this is done only very incompletely. This font should be used more often: - the words "type" and "value" in the two productions for Individual, - "allValuesFrom", "someValuesFrom" - "value" in value restrictions - (min, max-)cardinality - in datatypeproperty and objectproperty: super, domain, range (several times) - annotation (twice) In the three toplevel transformations for class axioms, the right bracket should be replaced/repaired. DifferentIndividuals, second transformation: instead of iIDi...iIDj it should be iID1...iIDn. RDF Model Theory should become RDF Semantics (twice). In the sentence with the word RDF Model Theory, replace "turn this syntax into..." by ", to turn this syntax into...". In the sentence with the word "ellipses" a semicolon should be deleted. typo: namspaces
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 11:46:56 UTC