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

RE: Peter's slides about the MOF metamodel

From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:41:12 -0400
To: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-owl-wg Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "'Peter Haase'" <haase@fzi.de>, "'Boris Motik'" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <021c01c8f73b$99eb3980$b3200681@MEL.NIST.GOV>

Bijan,

 >  I answered: All of it usefully generalizes, afaict, over the current
 >  concrete syntaxes.

How about the RDF/XML syntax that can bundles everything "about" a class
under one element (eg, disjointWith, subclassOf, etc, inside one
<owl:class></owl:class> element)?  In the OWL 2 W3C abstract syntax this
is broken up into separate elements (one for subclassOf, one for
disjointness, etc).  The OWL 2 metamodel would likewise use separate
elements for this, whereas the OWL 1 metamodel (or an OWL 2 metamodel
based on RDF/XML) would put them under one.

 >  The current flavor. I'm genuinely confused. I can look at a diagram
 >  and see how it corresponds to the functional syntax and the xml
 >  syntax and the manchester syntax and the rdf syntax without too much
 >  difficulty.

Sure, you do the mapping in your head.  I would say most hackers on
RDF/XML will want something more direct.

The W3C abstract syntax is useful of course, but the question is for
who.  If the W3C abstract syntax becomes more commonly used, rather than
just a favorite of DLers, then a metamodel for it would be as important
as one based on RDF/XML.  I don't think that's happened yet.

Conrad
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 20:42:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 August 2008 20:42:09 GMT