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

RE: LANG: new version of abstract syntax/translation document

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:36:14 -0500
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE322140F2EE913@USPLM207>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. \"Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Just a note.  You must be looking at an old version of the issues list.  4.1
and 4.2 are open.  Unless my bookkeepping is faulty.

- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:41 PM
To: Peter F. "Patel-Schneider
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: LANG: new version of abstract syntax/translation document



On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 05:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: 
> Here is a new version of the document.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/att-0031/01-specif
ication.html

I'm slowly making my way thru this...
I don't see any "don't release this as a WD!" problems so far...


> The only significant changes are in the introduction, where I have added a
> list of non-closed issues that are addressed by the document.

Much appreciated; details below.

> I am still unhappy that this document anticipates so many resolutions that
> have not yet been made.  I feel that this is putting the cart before the
> horse,

Really? I much prefer to decide technical details in the context
of an integrated proposal.

Deciding the issues independently, in my experience, leaves
the editor with a patchwork job of fitting the results together.


> even though the feeling of the working group is becoming evident on
> several of the open issues.  I feel that it would be a very good idea to
> close issues that appear to have consensus, including 2.4, 3.4, 4.1 (which
> is not even OPEN yet), 4.2 (which is not even OPEN yet), 5.2, 5.15, and
> 5.16.
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> ----


== 1.2. Stances Taken on OWL Issues

"#  The document does not include ordered property values,
assuming that issue 2.6 will be resolved against including
ordered property values in OWL."

Hmmm... I'm pretty fond of the first/rest construct for
ordered values.

"#  The document does not have a construct for asserting that a name is
the same as another name, assuming that issue 4.6 will be resolved 
against including this feature in OWL."

Wow... no sameClassAs nor samePropertyAs at all?
That seems to conflict with ontology mapping requirements.
no, I see EquivalentClasses and such... even SameIndividual.
I guess I don't understand what you're saying about 4.6.

"#  The document divides OWL properties into data-valued properties and
individual-valued properties, assuming that issue 5.1 will be
resolved in favour of keeping this distinction."

As noted elsewhere, I oppose this. I note this just
for completeness; I don't expect much of a response
from the editor, and I don't feel this should prevent
publication as is.


"*  The document assumes that literals can be either typed or untyped."

Hmm... I don't see what that means... maybe I need to read
closer/again...


<aside>
"The abstract syntax is specified here by means of a version of Extended
BNF."

It occured to me to try to write it in RELAX-NG's non-XML syntax,
just to see what it would look like...

for reference: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/relaxNG-gram.html
</aside>


== 4. Facts

I don't see any way to make existentially-quantified claims,
ala "there is a book whose author's name is Fred"

	_:aBook rdf:type :Book.
	_:aBook dc:author _:somebody.
	_:somebody ex:name "Fred".


How is that sort of thing expressed in the abstract syntax?


6. Mapping to the Triple Syntax

I'm finding this very slow going. How about an example or two?

What is T(x)? 




________________________________________________________________________
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 19:36:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT