- From: Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 07:05:55 +0000
- To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
It would be better if the functional syntax were strongly typed. This would have the following benefits: o The strongly typed functional syntax would directly correspond to the structural specification, which would make the mapping between the structural specification and RDF graphs easier to read. This is because with the strongly typed syntax the extra step of mapping the structural specification to the functional syntax and then to RDF graphs is trivial. o Strongly typed functional style syntax is trivial to parse, but the current version of the functional style syntax is not. The current version of the functional style syntax cannot be parsed in a single pass because declarations are not guaranteed to be at the start of the file. o Compact snippets of strongly typed functional style syntax can be used in emails, documents, and for debugging purposes in IDEs without the need to litter the axioms of interest with declaration axioms. This is due to the fact that the strongly typed functional style syntax is not ambiguous. For example compare SubClassOf(A ObjectSomeValuesFrom(R C)) with SubClassOf(A SomeValuesFrom(R C)). Is R an object property or data property? With the strongly typed syntax there is no ambiguity, but with the current syntax there is. Best regards, Matthew Horridge Bio-Health Informatics Group The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 07:07:51 UTC