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

Re: syntax task force - differences between the two approaches

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:16:33 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f12ba8405d60fb8@[]>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 17:22 +0000 2/27/03, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>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.

Ian - not the same - this is a specific subset in which case all 
members are explicitely mentioned -- this is doable in the xsd: 
world, and we have an easy place to put it.  It is not the same as 
being able to say "a real number greater than 15"  which could never 
be said in this form.  Also, the datatype reasoning is easy in this 
case because it is a closed and enumerated list, so the cardinality 
issues are solvable.
  so it seems a valuable feature, adds a small amount of something we 
wish we could provide, and doesn't cause serious problems to DL 

>  > >
>>  >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"

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 13:16:44 UTC

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