- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:08:46 -0500
- To: jonathan@openhealth.org
- Cc: Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl, www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Subject: Re: LANG: OWL non-xml syntax
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 06:05:04 -0500
> Frank et al.,
>
> Another question:
>
> the production <description>
>
> [[
> <description> ::= <classID>
> | <slot>
> | unionOf( <description> {,<description>} )
> | intersectionOf( <description> {,<description>} )
> | complementOf( <description> )
> | oneOf( <individualID> {,<individualID>} )
> | localRange( <propertyID> , <description-or-datatype> )
> | required( <propertyID> , <description-or-datatype> )
> | value( <propertyID> , <individualID> )
> | value( <propertyID> , <dataValue> )
> | minCardinality( <propertyID> , <integer> )
> Require at least integer values for propertyID.
> | maxCardinality( <propertyID> , <integer> )
> Require at most integer values for propertyID.
> | cardinality( <propertyID> , <integer> )
> Require exactly integer values for propertyID.
> ]]
>
> should this instead be something like <description-component> and then
> <description> ::= <description-component>*
>
> i.e. a description is composed of zero or more (perhaps one or more) of the
> following...
>
> ??
>
> Jonathan
Each of the above *is* a description, i.e., something that defines a
collection of individuals. A sequence of descriptions wouldn't define
anything. THe intersection of a sequence of descriptions is again a
description.
peter
Received on Sunday, 24 March 2002 10:10:14 UTC