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

RE: proposal to close issue-4

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 11:48:22 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BE1EF@judith.fzi.de>
To: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi all!

I am trying to understand what ISSUE-4 is about.

Does this issue refer, for example, to the grammar of "Ontology"?

  DL-Syntax: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Ontologies>

  Ontology := 'Ontology' '(' [ ontologyURI ] { import } { Annotation } {
Axiom } ')'

So this would mean that there is first an (optional) URI, than all imports,
then all annotations, and last all axioms. And, according to the grammatical
expression above, this ordering must not be different (for example no
imports after the axioms).

Is it this?

Cheers,
Michael

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>I don't think this one is worth taking action on. There is little to
>win. So I propose we close it as resolved without action.
>
>-Alan
>
>Issue:
>
>Some constructs in the functional syntax accept multiple different
>kinds of sub-constructs have a fixed order.  For example, in an ontology
>the annotations must preceed the axioms.  It would be better to allow
>the
>sub-constructs to be mixed together, e.g., to allow interspersing of
>annotations and axioms in an ontology.
>
>Later comment by Peter:
>2007-10-29 08:39:19: On further examination, the main construct is
>Ontology. The other place that order could be relaxed is annotations
>in axioms, but this causes problems with EntityAnnotation, as that
>has two kinds of annotations. Perhaps letting annotations have
>annotations would fix this, but it would introduce an asymmetry
>between this construct and the "other" axioms.
>
>
>
>



Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 09:49:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 6 May 2008 09:49:09 GMT