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

RE: OWL Syntax

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:19:49 +0100
To: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDGEBLCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Thanks,
 
that looks like a mistake - I will try changing it ...

When I do so I will assess the impact on the triple table ...

Currently in OWL Lite I am only allowing

classID owl:sameClassAs classID .

with owl:sameClassAs in the triple table.
The additional AS&S rule permits

classID owl:sameClassAs restriction .

but 

restriction owl:sameClass classID .
or
restriction owl:sameClass restriction .

are both in OWL DL.

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guus Schreiber [mailto:schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl]
> Sent: 13 February 2003 13:44
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: OWL Syntax
> 
> 
> Jeremy,
> 
> One small point.
> 
> Pter's mapping rules for complete classes generate a 
> "owl:equivalalentClass" triple in case there is only one "super" and an
> "owl:intersectionOf" triple in case of multiple "supers". You seem to do 
> always the latter, which appears semantically correct,  but seems less 
> clear from the user point of view,.
> 
> Guus
> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > 
> > Finally I have managed to (not quite) finish my work on OWL syntax ...
> > 
> > The entry point to a multipart document is:
> > 
> > http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/owl-syntax/2003-12-Feb/intro.html
> > 
> > I have also copied the document to the www-archive
> > 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Feb/0047.html
> > 
> > Sorry it took so long.
> > 
> > Jeremy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam,
> http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 09:20:15 GMT

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