- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:34:04 +0100
- To: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
On 13 Sep 2007, at 11:17, Matthew Horridge wrote: > Hi Matthew, > >> The spec for owl 1.1 defines equality over expressions. However, I >> can't see >> where it defines ordering over expressions. The haskell code I've >> got does >> provide a total ordering over all bits of the owl 1.1 syntax, >> meaning that I >> always process/serialize statements in a consistent order. This is great. >> This is >> particularly important in the xml serialization, particularly if >> we wish to >> be able to do diffs. It's super important in general. >> Have I missed the bit that talks about cannonical orderings? Is >> there an >> expected (although not required) order in which we should >> serialize elements >> to xml? No though one could emerge and tools could converge. > I don't think there is such a document. There isn't. There's actually two or three places it could go: e.g., In the functional syntax document or in the XML syntax document. Or in a canonicalization document. > Would you be able to document your approach and post it to the > list? (I could then add this to the OWL API, which already has an > axiom comparator, but it would be great if there was a more > standard approach). Indeed. The approach currently taken in the structural spec is a bit "abstract" with regard to concrete documents in that it uses sets quite a bit (e.g., an ontology is a set of axioms). I think being a bit more specific on parsing, comparison of parses, and serialization is a good thing for the WG to do. Any first steps toward this are more than welcome. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2007 10:32:54 UTC