W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: OWL 2.0

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 23:24:08 -0400
Message-Id: <ebe5dcae5edff0edce57ef96da82d2ff@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: denny@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de

On May 31, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Denny Vrandecic wrote:

>
> Hello all,
>
> quite some while ago the question of OWL 2.0 was rised here, and I 
> wrote already two long replies with a wishlist - but both were never 
> sent and got lost in digital nirvana, one due to a hardware, the 
> second due to a software failure. Well, let's hope this one passes 
> finally through. That's why this answer is so late.
>
> Sorry for the lengthy Mail. But I tried to structure it a bit and make 
> it readable, so I hope you find some interesting stuff here. So, here 
> is my wishlist.
>
> 1) I would like yet another OWL language, call it OWL RDF or OWL 
> Superlite, or whatever. This is like the subset of OWL Lite and RDFS. 
> For this the difference between of owl:Class and rdf:Class

How about rdfs:Resource and owl:Thing :) (A difference with a bigger 
difference!)

>  needs to be somehow standardly solved. Why is this good? It makes 
> moving from RDF to OWL easier, as it forces you to keep Individuals, 
> Classes and Relations in different worlds,

?

> and forgets about some of the more sophisticated constructs of RDF(S) 
> like lists, bags and such.

They actually aren't all that sophisticated in RDF and largely ignored 
at more expressive levels.

[snip]

> 4) I would love to be able to define syntactic sugar, like partitionOf 
> (I think, this is from Asuns Book on Ontology Engineering). ((A, B, C) 
> partitionOf D) means that every D is either an A or a B or a C, that 
> every A, B or C is a D, and that A, B and C are mutually disjunct. So 
> you can say this already, but it needs a lot of footwork. It would be 
> nice to be able to define such shotcuts that lever upon the  semantics 
> of existing constructors.
[snip]
This has been a desire of mine for a *loooong* time. It would be really 
nice to be able to associate e.g., XSLT sheets with chunks of of 
RDF/XML. So, for example, this could allow for parseType="Collection" 
like behavior for data values or for non rdf:List like constructs.

Hmm. parseType could do the job, perhaps. Bit blunt for new 
constructors.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 03:24:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:53 GMT