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

Re: OWL 2.0

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:35:40 +0100
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: denny@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <1117614940.12344.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 23:24 -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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 
> > 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 

Is GRDDL adequate for those purposes?


"""This document presents GRDDL, a mechanism for Gleaning Resource
Descriptions from Dialects of Languages; that is, for getting RDF data
out of XML and XHTML documents using explicitly associated
transformation algorithms, typically represented in XSLT."""


> 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.
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 08:35:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:13 UTC