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

Re: Abstract syntax document

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:09:07 -0400
To: michael.smith@eds.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020629000907H.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
Subject: Abstract syntax document
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:00:47 -0500

> In M:\projects\semanticWeb\WebOntology\FaceToFace2\Formal Specification of
> the OWL Web Ontology Language.htm
> 
>  <individual> ::= Individual( [<individualID>] {type=<classID>}
> {<propertyValue>} )
>  <propertyValue> ::= ( <individualvaluedPropertyID>  <individual> )
>                    | ( <datavaluedPropertyID>  <dataLiteral> )
> 
> Should the <propertyValue> production be changed so that <individual> is
> <individualID>?

This would prevent the RDF style of putting whole (or pieces of)
individuals inside others.

> Or 
> 
>  <propertyValue> ::= ( <individualvaluedPropertyID>  <individualRef> ) | ...
>  <individualRef> ::= <individual> | <individualID>

This might be an improvement.  however, note, that the abstract syntax is
an *abstract* syntax, so notions of compactness are not particularly
important.

> Otherwise, to say that Bob is the individual married to Sue I need 
> 
>  Individual( Bob type=Person ( marriedTo INDIVIDUAL(Sue) ))
> 
> - Mike

peter
Received on Saturday, 29 June 2002 00:09:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT