W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: WOWG: first language proposal

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:58:07 +0100
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEKBCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I think this indicates an interesting technique for resolving whether the
lite syntax is either:
- transformed into triples by already being in RDF/XML (Jonathan's
preference?)
or:
- in an XML concrete syntax corresponding closely to the abstract syntax
(Jeff's preference?), and then (my preference) transformed into RDF/XML by
XSLT, and then into triples by RDF/XML.

The technique is:
 - the initial (internal) draft is for an XML concrete syntax (uninfluenced
by RDF).
 - advocates of RDF/XML as the syntax demonstrate how with little change it
can be made conformant RDF/XML
 - we also explore how to transform the initial draft XML concrete syntax
into an adequate set of triples.

I confess to being nervous about the pure RDF/XML option, because of the
round tripping problem. A possible solution is to follow Jonathan's
suggestion but also (silently) requiring the reification of all the triples
in the file and sticking them in a bag. This allows the preservation of
(XML) document order. (It's a bit of a hack).

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jonathan Borden
> Sent: 05 April 2002 20:24
> To: Jeff Heflin; Ian Horrocks
> Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WOWG: first language proposal
>
>
> Jeff Heflin wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, that is basically what I mean. In an earlier message [1], I gave
> > some examples of what an XML syntax for WebOnt might look like. One
> > example from that message was:
> >
> > <!-- This says that a trio has three members, all of whom are musicians.
> > -->
> >   <owl:class ID="Trio">
> >      <owl:hasProperty ref="#hasMember">
> >         <owl:cardinality value="3" />
> >         <owl:allvalues>
> >            <owl:class ref="#Musician" />
> >         </owl:allvalues>
> >      </owl:hasProperty>
> >   </owl:class>
>
> but in something RDF compatible:
>
> <Class rdf:ID="Trio">
>         <subClassOf>
>                 <Restriction>
>                         <onProperty rdf:resource="#hasMember"/>
>                         <cardinality>3</cardinality>
>                         <rdf:range rdf:resource="#Musician"/>
>                 </Restriction>
>         </subClassOf>
> </Class>
>
> which, gosh, isn't all that different, is it?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 15:00:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT