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

Re: XML presentation syntax Schema (modification in AnnotationType)

From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:06:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
To: Masahiro Hori <HORIM@jp.ibm.com>
cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.50.0301090959290.616-100000@bean>

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Sean Bechhofer wrote:

>
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Masahiro Hori wrote:
>
> > >> This means that individuals can only be given types
> > >> which are named classes, rather than arbitrary class
> > >> descriptions. Is this right?
> >
> > As far as the individuals are concerned, that's true.
> > The syntax actually reflects to the Abstract Syntax [1]
> > in particular the following portion (Section 2.2 Facts):
>
> Ok. In that case my question is "is the Abstract Syntax right?"

I'll answer that myself :-). A glance at 2.2. in [1] gives:

[[
 <fact> ::= <individual>
 <individual> ::= Individual( [<individualID>] {<annotation>}
                              {type(<type>)} {<propertyValue>} )

 Facts are the same in OWL Lite and the full abstract syntax, except for
 what can be a type. In OWL Lite, types can be classIDs or OWL Lite
 restrictions

 <type> ::= <classID>
          | <restriction>

 In the full abstract syntax types can be general descriptions, which
 include classIDs and OWL Lite restrictions

 <type> ::= <description>
]]

My interpretation of this is that individuals can be given types which
are arbitrary descriptions, which suggests that the XML-Schema and the
Abstract Syntax are not in synch.

Cheers,

	Sean

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-semantics-20021108/semantics-all.html

-- 
Sean Bechhofer
seanb@cs.man.ac.uk
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 05:06:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT