Re: [ALL] review of n-ary relations

At 11:08 AM 7/6/2004 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Summary: ready to publish, a few comments ...

concur, with added editorial comments and remarks on yours

>...[B] use of amazon.com instead of books.example.com
>===================================================
>
>Personally I prefer avoiding any reference and any URL to something which is not an example.{com,org,net,edu} URL see RFC 2606, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html, except where necessary (e.g. w3.org URLs).
>
>The text refers to amazon.com whereas say books.example.com would be just as intelligible and not be open to misinterpretation as endorsing one company over another.

generally I agree with Jeremy, though the concern is less about
implicit endorsement (or advertising) and more along the lines
of consistency around _example_ URIs versus URIs that might
expected to be usable or useful and remain supported by the
owner of the domain.

>(However, I do not believe this is W3C policy, unless Ralph corrects me)

I don't think explicit reference to a real company would in general
be a showstopper.

>Further examples of URIs I don't like are in the example files where URIs starting http://protege.stanford.edu/ could be seen as endorsing protege rather than other tools. I think a w3.org URI would be more appropriate, in WG space, for these WG examples.

The example files should actually work, so it is more important
here that the URIs not return 404.

>RDF reification: I think the sentence referring the interested reader to  the discussion of reification in RDF could be deleted. 

I disagree.  The topics are related.  A future version of the document
might want to say a bit more about the differences.

Typos:

Open issues, todo items:

   The addition of /-a-/ an argument-list pattern

Use case examples

   There is a relation, in which individual John .... participate /-in-/.

Representation pattern

   (6th paragraph) ... but two or more of the participants have equal/-s-/
   "importance" in the relation.

Pattern 1:, second figure, "Breast_Tumor" is the legend in the
individual whereas "Breast_Cancer" is used in the text.

Pattern 1, last paragraph:
   ... in the /-pervious-//+previous+/ example.

Pattern 2: might note that this pattern is what OWL uses itself for
Restrictions.

Considerations when representing n-ary relations

  bullet 1, last sentence:  ... and /-horizontal-//+vertical+/ as the value

  bullet 2, last sentence: ... a similar approach is taken when reifying
  /-sentences-//+statements+/ in RDF.

  bullet 3: OWL allow/+s+/ definition of ...

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 08:12:13 UTC