W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: General discussion for TC Wednesday 2008-04-21

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:38:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080422.103818.219862288.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: General discussion for TC Wednesday 2008-04-21
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:33:51 +0100

> On Apr 21, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> [snip]
> > Syntax: The proposal suggests using the serialization proposed by the
> RIF BLD[2] for easy keys.
> No. The proposal suggest that the *translation to a rule* can be given
> using RIF. EasyKeys have their own functional syntax and I'll insert a
> proposal for mapping to RDF tomorrow. The basic outline is easy enough,
> something like:
> 	aClass owl:hasKey (list of key Properties)
> > A quick glance at the document cited reveals only an XML syntax, and
> the RIF/RDF/OWL documentation[3] suggests that combinations of RIF and
> RDF be made by way of using multiple documents.  Is there a RDF syntax
> proposed, and if not are we comfortable with having key axioms specified
> in a non-RDF syntax.
> I've put the proposal into the Wiki.
> > Documentation: What impact would adding Easy Keys have on our user
> facing documentation?
> There will be something in the Reference, of course, and I would suggest
> having it in the primer as well. It's a popular feature.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

It would be useful to update the pointer in the agenda to reflect these
corrections and updates in the "discussion points".

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 14:41:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC