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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:58:01 -0400
To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020717225801V.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: LANG: new version of abstract syntax/translation document
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:41:01 -0400

> At 5:33 PM -0400 7/17/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> >Subject: Re: LANG: new version of abstract syntax/translation document
> >Date: 17 Jul 2002 14:41:20 -0500
> >
> >>  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-specification.html
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>  == 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.
> >
> >This produces an ordered list, which is, I believe, different from ordered
> >property values.   I believe that ordered property values are something
> >like is possible in XML, with its document ordering.
> 
> actually, I have no idea what the difference between 2.5 (closed 
> lists) and 2.6 (ordered values) actually is - I had planned to 
> propose to have 2.6 declared as subsumed by 2.5 -- that is, doesn't 
> the new rdf solution with respect to list, first, rest, and nil give 
> us this?   Peter says that he believes ordered property value is 
> different from ordered lists -- Peter, can you elaborate this? 
> Should we keep these as separate issues?
>   thanks

My view is that issue 2.5 is handled by the first/rest/nil construction.
We should thus declare success and close it.

Issue 2.6 is, in my view, very different.  Suppose that you have several
property values, as in:

	foo bar x1 .
	foo bar x2 .

RDF does not have any way of inducing an order on these two value.  XML
does, namely document order.  

To address issue 2.6 OWL would have to have a way of providing a total, or
partial, over the values of a property for a particular object. 

Of course, I may be completely misreading both 2.5 and 2.6.


peter
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 22:58:11 GMT

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