Review of Core Dave Reynolds

XML syntax [i1] Section 2.1. The example XML syntax lacks any namespace. Should indicate that the final XML syntax will have a namespace even if we can't assign one in time for WD1. [WD1] [i2] Since (I assume) the final XML syntax will have a namespace then I don't think DTD's are a sufficient mechanism for validation. Suggest dropping the DTD appendix and references to it. [WD1]

Syntax for primitive sorts [i3] I think the sort name should be a URI (with curi format being allowed). For the linear syntax I second Jos' suggestion to use NTriple notation of "lex"^^typeURI and Turtle/n3 notation of "lex"^^prefix:local. I know we agreed this could wait until WD2 but the amount of text to change does not look great and I'd be prepared to do the edits if that is the only barrier to inclusion of such a change in WD1. Similarly the "sortal" attributed examples should either use full URIs or curi form. [WD1] [i4] The section detailing the types integer through to dateTime is either too much or too little. We have already said these are as defined in "XML Schema part 2: Datatypes" in which case that should be just restated in this section. Don't duplicate the lexical space descriptions here. [WD1] [i5] This section does not specify the values space corresponding to the sorts, just the syntax. For the xsd types then this already defined and the above change would address this. However, the sort "uri" needs more explanation. It appears to be intended to be a subsort of xsd:string and so is essentially xsd:anyURI. If so then that should be make more clear and perhaps the relation (or rather lack of it) between this and the RDF Resources should be commented on. Is there intent to have a different sort for RDF/OWL resources? [WD2 but I'd like to understand the general intent better before WD1 goes out]. [i6] The charter called for support for xsd:int, xsd:decimal etc. Was there a particular reason to change that to xsd:integer? I actually think the pair xsd:integer and xsd:decimal make more sense but wanted to check the change is deliberate and agreed. [WD1]

Further issues [i7] Section 3.1. Issue in document concerning rulesets. Could have OrderedRuleset and Ruleset with roles "rule" which in the case of RuleSet can point to a Forall or an OrderedRuleset. That allows ruleset merging whilst preserving partial order when significant. [Not necessary for WD1] [i8] General - human readable syntax. The purpose of the linear/human readable syntax seems confused. We need a linear syntax in order to write down examples and the semantics. We had agreed this, like the XML syntax, would be derivable from the abstract syntax. However, the WD seems to be trying to fine tune the linear syntax more than that. Thus there is all the role skipping stuff and inconsistencies where roles like "if" and "then" are skipped in the linear syntax and not skipped in the XML. I think we need to decide if we really mean "human readable syntax" or "linear syntax automatically derivable from metamodel" and modify the design accordingly. [WD2] [i9] The notion of the role/stripe-skipped syntax is a problem for extensibility that I've commented on before. If the linear syntax is intended to really be used (see i8) then I suggest there be a non-skipped mechanically derivable linear syntax and then the prettier role-skipped version be introduced as a set of *optional* abbreviations (i.e. additional productions in the grammar, not as replacements for the role-full versions). [WD2]