- From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:30:37 +0000
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-166: LC Comment: Michael Schneider - non-urgent issues [RDF Semantics]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/166
Raised by: Guus Schreiber
On product: RDF Semantics
Comments by Michael Schneider
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0067.html
NON-URGENT ISSUES (NOT DESIGN-RELATED):
* §3: The chapter introduces the term "entailment regime",
but does not say much about it. As this term is also
introduced and quite intensively used in the SPARQL 1.1 spec
(in particular by the SPARQL Entailment Regimes spec), I
suggest to be a little more elaborate on the term, in order
to avoid that the terms are not understood differently in
the contexts of the two specifications.
* §4, 2nd par: I would change the order of "referent and
denotion" to "denotion and reference" to match the order
of the two corresponding terms mentioned earlier in the text:
"denotes and refers to".
* §5.3 (and for other entailment regimes as well): I suggest
to always be explicit on the entailment regimes, when it
comes to the terms "satisfies", "entails", etc. So it should
always be "simply entails", or "RDF entails", instead of only
"entails", even if this may be obvious from the context (it
probably isn't for everyone). After all, these are definitions
and should be as precise as possible.
* §5.3: the "Technical Note" on not defining entailment
between graphs is in fact also a Change Note, and should
be marked as such in addition.
* §5.4: The Simple-semantics theorem "Every graph is
satisfiable" is followed by the statement that "this
does not hold for extended notions of interpretation".
This text should be modified to say that it does not
_always_ hold for extended notions of interpretation.
One could still construct some extended notion where
it does hold, although not for any of the extended
notions in the RDF 1.1 Semantics.
* §5.4, Technical Note: I recommend to remove the claim about
graphs containing many bnodes that this is "unlikely to
occur in practice". Actually, it is relatively common,
namely for OWL documents with many Boolean class expressions
when serialized in RDF, because for a union or intersection
class expression, the number of bnodes is proportional to the
number of classes occuring in the class expression.
Apart from this concrete case, an assumption of the given kind
has in my opinion no place in a spec document, specifically
not within a technical note.
* §7, 1st par: typos:
- "... which datatype is identifier by..." should probably
say "identified"
- "... and should treat any literals type": probably
"typed literals"
* §7, 2nd par: Why does the text not refer to the term
"lexical space", which is introduced in the RDF 1.1 Concepts
document and has been used in the original RDF Semantics
(and other standards as well)? In the given form, I see no
reason for the term's omission, and the text reads rather
awkward without a direct reference to the lexical space.
* §7, 3rd par: "RDF processors are not REQUIRED". The word
"not" should also be written in uppercase to avoid
misconception while reading the text.
* §8: Why is there no table presenting the "RDF Vocabulary"?
The RDFS chapter provides such a table, and the original
RDF Semantics did so as well. It would be useful, at least.
* Appendices: Several of the appendix titles contain the text
"(Informative)", directly followed by the sentence
"This section is non-normative". This is redundant. I suggest
to remove "(Informative)" from the titles, in accordance
with the rest of the document.
* Appendix D: I don't see a reason to repeat the "non-normative"
declaration for the appendix in each of its sub-sections.
* Appendix D.2, vocabulary table: I suggest to add the additional
RDFS terms for the container vocabulary as well.
* References: I do not understand why the following documents
are listed as "normative references":
- OWL2-SYNTAX
- RDF-PLAIN-LITERAL
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 08:30:47 UTC