W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: WOWG: Agenda Feb 6 telecon

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:49:06 +0000
Message-ID: <3E414E92.1030709@hpl.hp.com>
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
CC: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

> 4.1 Concrete syntax of OWL Lite/DL
> Concerns Typing of nodes and properties in the concrete syntax.
> Carroll will post message to the list as input for discussion.

I am doing an on-going piece of work which will result in a proposal for 
many minor changes to the syntax, in order to get a cleaner expression as 
rdf triples.

Part of that which is baked, and ready for WG discussion is the following 

For every node of the graph and every URI reference used as a property or 
datatype at least one of the following holds:
+ It is one of the built-in URI references from RDF, RDFS, OWL or XML 
Schema datatypes.
+ It is a literal.
+ It is the subject of at least one triple with predicate rdf:type; with an 
object other than rdfs:Class, rdf:Property, owl:DeprecatedClass, 
owl:DeprecatedProperty, owl:FunctionalProperty

(I think the list of exclusions is complete, but I might have missed one or 
two - the intent is that the required explicit rdf:type triple permits the 
assignment of the uriref to one of the abstract syntax categories of uriref).


- easy to articulate
- easy to check


- more restrictive than needed
- some minor changes to mapping rules
- requires a class for owl:DataRange
- requires a class for annotations (either owl:AnnotationProperty or 
owl:DatatypeProperty or owl:ObjectProperty depending on orthogonal 
discussion about annotation semantics)

Example changes:

   <owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
     <owl:priorVersion rdf:resource="old.rdf"/>

   <owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
         <owl:Ontology rdf:about="old.rdf"/>
<!-- either -->
   <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="&dc;creator"/>
<!-- or -->
   <owl:AnnotationProperty  rdf:about="&dc;creator"/>

    <owl:Class rdf:ID="union">
           <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
              <owl:Class rdf:about="#a"/>
              <owl:Class rdf:about="#b"/>

New (also legal Current):
    <owl:Class rdf:ID="union">
           <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
              <owl:Class rdf:about="#a"/>
              <owl:Class rdf:about="#b"/>

Suggested change to test cases style guide:
  - for OWL Lite and OWL DL test cases
    are avoided.


For reference:
Two pointers to my on-going efforts on syntax:


I hope to post a fully baked proposal in the next week.
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 12:49:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC