- From: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:07:23 +0100
- To: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- Cc: rogargon@gmail.com, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, semantic-web@w3.org, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Wednesday 11 April 2007, Michael Schneider wrote: > Hi, Matthew! > My opinion: One can, of course, always use a custom approach of the form > you and Alan proposed - it works. But I suppose that many people will > dislike the situation to always build their own custom list types, while > there is already a lot of collection vocabulary in RDF, which they can > only use either in a very limited way, like for rdf:Bag and friends, or > not at all, like for rdf:List. The other option would be to treat the owl in a more 'syntactic' way, and have a sensible (and DL-safe) macro system that expands things like OWLList and OWLListMemberAtIndex and so on into a fully OWL-DL friendly representation. You would write what looks natural to you, and this would be expanded on-the-fly into axioms that are plain OWL. This approach doesn't make too much sense if you want each entity in the owl to correspond to a real-world entity or concept, but this distinction can be made explicit by annotating entities as being either real-world or modelling in motivation. Of course, the showstopper with this is that there isn't a recognised owl-friendly macros system available right now. Matthew > > Cheers, > Michael
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 10:07:35 UTC