W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Restrictions on Bags and Seqs content

From: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:07:23 +0100
To: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
Cc: rogargon@gmail.com, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, semantic-web@w3.org, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <200704121107.23808.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>

On Wednesday 11 April 2007, Michael Schneider wrote:
> Hi, Matthew!

> My opinion: One can, of course, always use a custom approach of the form
> you and Alan proposed - it works. But I suppose that many people will
> dislike the situation to always build their own custom list types, while
> there is already a lot of collection vocabulary in RDF, which they can
> only use either in a very limited way, like for rdf:Bag and friends, or
> not at all, like for rdf:List. 

The other option would be to treat the owl in a more 'syntactic' way, and have 
a sensible (and DL-safe) macro system that expands things like OWLList and 
OWLListMemberAtIndex and so on into a fully OWL-DL friendly representation. 
You would write what looks natural to you, and this would be expanded 
on-the-fly into axioms that are plain OWL. This approach doesn't make too 
much sense if you want each entity in the owl to correspond to a real-world 
entity or concept, but this distinction can be made explicit by annotating 
entities as being either real-world or modelling in motivation.

Of course, the showstopper with this is that there isn't a recognised 
owl-friendly macros system available right now.


> Cheers,
> Michael
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 10:07:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC