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

Syntax Changes

From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:38:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
To: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.44.0302201536360.2400-100000@potato>

Raphael and I would like to propose the following changes to the
concrete syntax. This is based on our implementation experience over
the last couple of weeks.

1) An AllDifferent construct is supplied which allows the
   specification of multiple different individuals. Can we also have
   AllDisjointClasses and possibly AllSame, AllEquivalentClasses and
   AllEquivalentProperties. In a number of our example ontologies,
   there are multiple disjoints. Being forced to represent these as
   n(n-1) distinct binary disjoints is troublesome, and can result in
   difficulty in round-tripping, particularly if a tool allows an
   author to assert multiple simultaneous disjoints (as, for example,
   is possible in OilEd.

2) Move everything into the owl namespace. Thus rather than using
   rdf:type, rdfs:domain, rdfs:range etc., we have owl:type, owl:domain
   etc. This would have two benefits:

   a) Reduce user confusion as to which namespace to use. Examples in
   the past have shown that users typically get confused about whether
   they should use, for example rdf:type or rdfs:type or

   b) This would also be of benefit when processing or parsing OWL
   ontologies as the processor can make assumptions about the type of
   the object of, for example owl:domain (which must be some

   If the OWL.owl schema specification contains the relevant
   assertions. e.g.

   owl:type rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type

   then any ontology written using the owl vocabulary would still be
   accessible to an RDF/RDFS processor.



Sean Bechhofer
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 10:39:22 UTC

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