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

Re: S&AS review: general remarks

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:54:43 +0000
Message-ID: <3E81CD43.6040000@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
CC: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org, jjc@hpl.hp.com

This reply concerns the status of my proof giving between the triples and 
the mapping rules.

herman.ter.horst@philips.com wrote:

> I did not review Section 4.3 as it appears in Jeremy's recent
> mail to Webont [1].  Any complete proposal for 
> Section 4.3 should be accompanied with a proof that the given
> standalone RDF description of OWL DL and OWL Lite is correct
> given the normative description of OWL DL and OWL Lite as
> the outcome of the mappings from the abstract syntax.
> [1] does not contain such a proof.
> Is there an idea how to complete this version of Section 4.3 
> with such a proof, given that the mapping rules and
> abstract syntax in S&AS differ from those in Jeremy's earlier
> version?
> Herman ter Horst
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0161.html

Short answer:
The proof needs work that I can do within, but not before, the last call 

Long answer:

The last version of the proof that I worked on is in the CVS history of


I will dig it out and put it back as the current version.

However, it suffers from:

+  i's not dotted and t's not crossed
   I suspect there is another couple of days work on that front.
+  the syntax it is based on is not identical to Peter's.
   The differences are now entirely stylistic:
    the two priciple ones being
     + use of classID(uriref) instead of classID etc.
     + use of one ontology with multiple headers instead of multiple ontologies
+ there are also some unnecessary (and unimportant) differences that need 
to be removed.

Of these I might be able to correct the former in the output routines, or 
alternatively provide a introductory gloss explaining it away - however my 
code will not work without it.

The latter could also possibly be corrected - but it is somewhat ugly; an 
introductory gloss explaining it away might be more elegant.

The advantage of not needing either introductory gloss is that I would not 
need to duplicate the grammar - however it is convenient/necessary to have 
each grammar rule and mapping rule numbered and with an anchor.

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 10:55:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:52 UTC