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

Re: syntax task force - differences between the two approaches

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:22:57 +0000
Message-ID: <15966.18801.893538.247606@merlin.horrocks.net>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

On February 26, Jim Hendler writes:
> At 10:11 -0500 2/26/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >Here is my summary of the differences between the two approaches.  I may be
> >missing some differences.
> >
> >peter
> 
> A couple of comments on a few of these:
> 
> >
> >
> >Substantive Differences in Abstract Syntax
> >
> >
> >
> >Jeremy - can name data valued oneOfs
> >S&AS   - can't name data valued oneOfs
> 
> IMHO this could be a valuable construct - for example the reference 
> manual has an example of the list of "0 15 30 40" which is the 
> possible numeric tennis scores.  Being able to name that list would 
> be valuable in a system reasoning about sports statistics (which is 
> one of the actual use cases in my research group - we're doing 
> client-side presentation of sports information based on various 
> ontologies of sport).

Naming it seems like a bad idea. It would effectively introduce an
OWL mechanism for defining datatypes, whereas we are supposed to be
relying on XMLS for that.

> >
> >Jeremy - incorporates some RDF container vocabulary
> >S&AS   - forbids RDF container vocabulary
> 
> certainly Full must include the containers, right?  We believe all 
> RDF Documents are Full (with the possible exception of those which 
> abuse the owl: namespace)

From AS&S: "this abstract syntax should be thought of a syntax for OWL DL"

Ian
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 12:24:07 GMT

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