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

Re: LANG: OWL non-xml syntax

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:20:28 +0100
Message-ID: <3CA0E61C.2000602@cs.vu.nl>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jonathan,

A specific point and a general point:

Specific point:
---------------

Jonathan Borden wrote:


> class ex:baz (
>         oneOf(
>                     property ex:a,
>                     property ex:b,
>                     property ex:c
>         )
> 
> would not _have been_ immediately obvious to me, 


this is not a legal construction in our proposal for OWL [1] (nor is it in 
DAML+OIL [2]). In both of these, oneOf defines a class by enumerating all its 
instances. That's not what the above does.

General point:
--------------
Forgive me for asking, but I'm a bit at a loss as to the goal of your efforts. 
- Is your goal to make a better abstract syntax for the proposal in [1]?
- If so, better in what sense? Easier to XML-ise? Easier to parse?
   By machines? By humans?
- Or making our proposal in [1] more like DAML+OIL? In what way.

Can you explain (or perhaps: repeat) what you are aiming for?
Sorry if this is a question I should have known the answer to,

Frank.
    -----

[1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/frame.html
[2] http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference.html#oneOf-def
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 16:21:16 GMT

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