From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Some more comments. From: Jeff Heflin <email@example.com> Subject: A few comments on the new DAML-OIL spec Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:40:51 -0500 > First, I apologize for missing the last two telecons: I've been going on > job interviews. Nevertheless, it looks like some good progress has been > made without me... maybe I should miss more telecons! ;-) > > Here's my comments on the various specs available at > http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-index > > daml+oil.daml: > -------------- > 1) rdfs:range of maxCardinality is > http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#nonNegativeInteger, I assume this > should be http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger > > 2) ditto for rdfs:range of cardinality, minCardinalityQ, > maxCardinalityQ, and cardinalityQ These should be fixed. > 3) Why is UnambiguousProperty a subclass of AbstractProperty? Can't > there be Datatype properties that are unambiguous? For example, > numberOfMonth (with domain Month, and range nonNegativeInteger)? The problem is that to check that a property is unambiguous concerns properties of the range of the relation, and we didn't want to have to think about properties of datatypes. > daml+oil-walkthru: > ------------------ > 1) In the section "Defining individuals", it says "Note that to use > datatype values, we had to provide an XML Schema datatype along with the > value. This > datatype is used to parse the lexical representation into an actual > value." I thought that this was optional, especially if the DAML > ontology defines the range. I believe Mike Dean had argued earlier that > if we had to tag the type of each value, then it would be very > inconvenient for users (now come the counter-arguments about how most > users will use tools to do the markup anyway...). Personally, it seems a > little overboard to me, and I'd like to have a choice as to whether or > not I provide the datatype with every value I specify or take my chances > that any consuming agent will download the appropriate ontology before > parsing. If I'm preaching to the converted, then maybe we need to be a > little clearer in the Walkthru document. If this was voted on at a > telecon that I missed, then I guess I can't complain. This is probably a missed piece when the extension to straight literals was added. > reference.html: > --------------- > 1) In the section "Property restriction", the first paragraph has an > unifinished sentence "Both kinds of restrictions..." The fix is probably to remove this paragraph, and to remove the visible <\span> tag. > 2) My comment for datatype values above (daml+oil-walkthu #1) also > applies to the Datatype Values section > > 3) My comment on UnambiguousProperty above (daml+oil.daml #3) also > applies in the "Property element" section See above. > Jeff peter PS: Thanks for the close reading.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST