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

Re: LANG: feedback on owl proposal

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:41:46 +0100
Message-ID: <3C9B970A.50406@cs.vu.nl>
To: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Enrico Motta wrote:

> Frank,
> 
> quick restatement of the points I made yesterday at the telecon:
> 
> 1) 100% in favour of the approach (owl-frame vs full-owl)


Good to hear it.


> 2) 'full cardinality' should be in owl-frame


I agree it's a judgement call.
You could well be right.


> 3) full set of property specification properties shoud be in owl-frame 
> (symmetric, transitive, inverseOf, uniquelyDefining, unambigous, etc..)


- Again I agree it's a judgement call, and you could be right.
- Notice that "inverseOf" was not in our proposal,
   so that's not just a move but also an addition.
- One inverseOf is added, symmetric comes for free.
- I would be interested what falls under your "etc.."
   (during the teleconf you mentioned that you would like to see
    others in this list).


> 4) drop 'primitive class & defined class terminology. I have not been 
> able to come up with better alternatives. , so maybe we could use a 
> different approach and qualify the attribute specs, rather than 
> classes.  For instance
> 
> PrimitiveClass (male, supers(animal))
> 
>  becomes
> 
> Class Male (attributeSpec supers(animal))
> 
> 
> DefinedClass (Man, supers(Person, Male))
> 
>  becomes
> 
> Class Man (completelydefiningAttributeSpec supers(Person, Male))
> 
> A possible extension of this approach could be to allow users to mix 
> definitional properties with other properties in the same definition - 
> i.e., attributeSpec and completelydefiningAttributeSpec could also be 
> used in the same definition.  For instance:
> 
> Class Man (completelydefiningAttributeSpec supers(Person, Male),
>                   (attributeSpec slot (hasAge, range=PositiveInteger)))
> 
> The above class spec to be interpreted as stating
> 
> Man (x) <-> (Person (x) and Male (x))
> (Man (x) and hasAge (x, y)) -> PositiveInteger(y)


Interesting suggestion. Need to chew on it.

Thanks.
As promised, I will make sure that all of these comments are gathered in an 
"annotated version of the language proposal" for the F2F in A'dam.


> PS
> plus an additional organizational point.  Would it be possible to 
> include the other members of teh subgroup in offline discussions? 
> Otherwise not sure what is the point of being in one group rather than 
> another one.


Peter, Ian and I prepared the first proposal off-line because we needed 
something quick to get the ball rolling in the language group. Clearly, the 
place for discussion is the mailing list.

Frank.
    ----
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 15:42:37 GMT

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