From: Jeff Heflin (heflin@cse.lehigh.edu)
Date: 10/31/01
Thanks, Peter. I forgot, was somebody going to make a similar update to the specs on daml.org? Or did we decide to wait til the W3C Note was officially published so we could just point to it from daml.org? Jeff "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu> > Subject: Errors in the March 2001 DAML+OIL specs > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:55:22 -0500 > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I've asked the students in my class to develop their own DAML+OIL > > ontologies, and in the process we've been putting the March 2001 specs > > through their paces. Here are a couple of bugs we've found: > > > > 1) In the Reference Description, the section on > > rdf:parseType="daml:collection" does not use the correct syntax in its > > examples. The example has: > > > > <oneOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > > <Thing rdf:resource="#red"/> > > <Thing rdf:resource="#white"/> > > <Thing rdf:resource="#blue"/> > > </oneof> > > > > However, the attribute on the Thing elements should be rdf:ID or > > rdf:about. Why? Each Thing element should be a typedNode (see production > > 6.13 in Section 6 of RDFM&S) and typed nodes must have either rdf:ID or > > rdf:about attributes. The rdf:resource attribute is only used with > > properties. Note that elsewhere in the Reference and in the Walkthrough > > we consistently use rdf:about or rdf:ID. > > Changed in daml+oil-reference.html (six places). > > > 2) Has the Disjoint class been deleted? daml+oil.daml has a comment to > > this effect, but the Walkthru still contains two paragraphs on it. > > Furthermore, it still appears in the index of the Reference document, > > even though none of the text in the document describes it. If the class > > has been removed from the language, then we need to remove all traces of > > it from the documents. If it wasn't supposed to be removed, then we need > > to rework it, because it's broken (I can explain in a separate message > > if anyone's interested). > > Disjoint removed from walkthrough (two paragraphs worth). > Disjoint removed from model theory (one point). > Disjoint removed from reference (a note, not an index entry). > > > 3) In the Housekeeping section of the Walkthru, the example of > > daml:imports is missing the "/" before the end of the tag need to > > indicate that it is an empty element. > > Already fixed. > > > 4) This is kind of nitpicking, but in the Walkthru, Ian is listed under > > Acknowledgements, even though he is already listed as an editor. > > Already fixed. > > > Is it too late to see if these errors are in the Note submitted to the > > W3C? I don't know where the current version of it is, so I couldn't > > check it myself. > > > > Jeff > > Note: no changes required to any .daml files. > > peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST