- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:20:41 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Review of http://wonderweb.man.ac.uk/owl/rdf.shtml dated 05/30/03 Scope of review: purely technical - I believe the WG is already convinced of the stylistic merits of this work. Footnote [3]: suggest add: -- x rdf:type rdfs:Class x rdf:type owl:Class x rdf:type owl:Restricition -- as one of the possibilities Restrictions ========== Suggest s/involving/with predicate/ (leaving 'involved' to indicate the object of a triple) "It is not the subject of any other triples" Unfortunately false, and hardish to fix. 1) see footnote 3 fix 2) it may be the subject of many owl:equivalentClass or owl:disjointWith triples. Class Axioms =========== weak suggest s/|/\nor\n/ Property Axioms ============= owl:DatatypeProperty can have an rdfs:domain rdfs:range suggest s/specifying a data range/specifying a data range with type owl:DataRange/ also note rdfs:Literal can be specified as a range Boolean Class Expressions ====================== suggest adding at end, if the owl:Class is unnamed then only one such expression is permitted. Named classes can have any number of these expressions. Avoid Structure Sharing =================== s/AS&S/S&AS/ Avoid Orphan bnodes ================== unnamed individuals are forgotten suggest "In general, bnodes occurring in the graph either represent unnamed individuals or should " Omission ======== owl:equivalentClass and owl:disjointClass suggest waiting to see the B1 B2 discussion before drafting Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 04:20:41 UTC