[Nml-wg] Review of the OWL schema

[Freek Dijkstra]

On 15-01-2013 01:54, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:

>> Missing items:
>> * nml:canProvidePort relation
> 
> This does not seem to be in the doc or XML schema either? Did we define that?

It was discussed on the mailing list between Sep 28 and Oct 5.

It is in the document since Dec 8:
http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/nml-wg/repository/revisions/24456d9507f502037d35257d5fc6133a73e06f49

>> * hasLabelGroup
>>  Domain is correct
>>  Range should be Union of LinkGroup and PortGroup
> 
> This is not in the schema doc.
> How does a PortGroup hasLabelGroup PortGroup? What does that mean?

I was wrong here.
The Range is correct.
The Domain should be Union of LinkGroup and PortGroup.

The Domain is currently a PortGroup only, but I see no fundamental
reasons not to allow adding labels to a LinkGroup.



I may have made a another mistake in my advice.

The range of isSerialCompoundLink is now changed to OrderedList (was:
List). However, looking at the example section in the document, the
OrderedList object is not used, but the ListItem object as follows:

Link A --(isSerialCompoundLink)--> ListItem #1
   ListItem #1 --(item)--> Link #1
   ListItem #1 --(next)--> Link #2
   ListItem #2 --(item)--> Link #2
   ListItem #2 --(next)--> Link #3
   ListItem #3 --(item)--> Link #3

So I guess the Range of isSerialCompoundLink is "ListItem" in RDF.


FYI, for XML, the "OrderedList" object is also not used:
Link A --(isSerialCompoundLink)--> Link #1
   Link #1 --(next)--> Link #2
   Link #2 --(next)--> Link #3


That brings me to another issue: where should the following objects be
defined:
* ListItem object
* next relation
* item relation

Currently, the document does not define any of these. I'm inclined that
these should be described in the sections where the syntax is defined
(thus in the Appendix?)

In addition to the appendix, should they be listed in the normative text
just to 'claim' the URI "http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2012/10/base#next"
somewhere?

Freek