W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Serialization issues

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:16:27 +0100
Message-Id: <5BBC945A-DB56-46AB-8864-B3A3132BA0BA@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: hoekstra@uva.nl, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

On Oct 26, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> How far do you want to carry this trend?  Should we define a canonical
> order for the serialization of ontolgoies?

Yep. Lexicographical would be smart. That's what some serializers do  
anyway.

>   This would certainly have
> some advantages (searching, diffs, source control), but also has some
> drawbacks (inflexibiliy, gratuitous rejection of ontologies).

I was thinking of making it optional, or a condition on output not on  
barring parses. E.g., it would be a canonical serialization.

> How about having the functional-style syntax be very forgiving of  
> order,
> but having a suggested ordering?  Tools should then try to  
> serialize in
> the suggested order (perhaps with an option to not do so) but would
> accept "out-of-order" inputs.

yeah. that was the basic intention.

> So for ontologies, the suggested order could be annotations first (in
> some order), followed by imports, followed by declaration and entity
> annotation then class then object property then data property then
> individual axioms (each in some order).  However, the function-style
> syntax would be something like
>
> ontology := 'Ontology' '(' ontologyURI
> 	    	       	   { importDeclaration | annotation | axiom }
>  		       ')'

I'm pretty indifferent to exactly how we spec this. One could always  
have a tighter grammar and then relax things.

> By the way, it appears that the UML diagram for ontologies is not  
> quite
> right.  Shouldn't the imports of an ontology be ontology names, not
> ontologies?

 From a specing api point of view, I would think that the former is  
correct.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 10:16:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT