- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:35:40 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: denny@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 23:24 -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On May 31, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Denny Vrandecic wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > quite some while ago the question of OWL 2.0 was rised here, and I ... > > 4) I would love to be able to define syntactic sugar, like partitionOf > > (I think, this is from Asuns Book on Ontology Engineering). ((A, B, C) > > partitionOf D) means that every D is either an A or a B or a C, that > > every A, B or C is a D, and that A, B and C are mutually disjunct. So > > you can say this already, but it needs a lot of footwork. It would be > > nice to be able to define such shotcuts that lever upon the semantics > > of existing constructors. > [snip] > This has been a desire of mine for a *loooong* time. It would be really > nice to be able to associate e.g., XSLT sheets with chunks of of > RDF/XML. Is GRDDL adequate for those purposes? http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2005/SUBM-grddl-20050516/ """This document presents GRDDL, a mechanism for Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages; that is, for getting RDF data out of XML and XHTML documents using explicitly associated transformation algorithms, typically represented in XSLT.""" Dan > So, for example, this could allow for parseType="Collection" > like behavior for data values or for non rdf:List like constructs. > > Hmm. parseType could do the job, perhaps. Bit blunt for new > constructors.
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 08:35:35 UTC