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

LANG: OWL non-xml syntax

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:21:09 -0500
Message-ID: <004401c1d22a$8afbc620$0301a8c0@ne.client2.attbi.com>
To: "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
It is often helpful to have a non-XML syntax, which is often more human
readable.

In the process of merging the proposed OWL abstract syntax with DAML+OIL,
and in creating this non-XML syntax in the process, a few issues have arisen
(this is why this process is often helpful)

First an simple example of the non-XML syntax:
http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/Schema.onx  -- note that I am using the "onx"
suffix for "OWL Non-xml"
Second, the simple Schema from which this was derived:
http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/Schema.owl
Third, the surface syntax,
http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/OWLnonXMLsyntax.txt which is derived from
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/frame.html , note that
this is not yet complete pending resolution of these issues, (and perhaps a
few others :-))

1: What distinguishes "DefinedClass" from "PrimitiveClass", there is nothing
in the abstract syntax which helps?
2: What is the syntactic differenence between an "Individual" and a "Fact"?

Note that one of the features which distinguishes this from the abstract
syntax is that it is LALR(1) i.e. a JavaCC version should be able to emit
DAML+OIL XML format as is done with RELAXNG non-XML -> RELAXNG XML format.

If this format is useful, then I will procede to write a tool which
translates to the RDF/XML format of OWL.

Jonathan
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 12:40:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT