- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:16:27 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: hoekstra@uva.nl, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Oct 26, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> How far do you want to carry this trend? Should we define a canonical
> order for the serialization of ontolgoies?
Yep. Lexicographical would be smart. That's what some serializers do
anyway.
> This would certainly have
> some advantages (searching, diffs, source control), but also has some
> drawbacks (inflexibiliy, gratuitous rejection of ontologies).
I was thinking of making it optional, or a condition on output not on
barring parses. E.g., it would be a canonical serialization.
> How about having the functional-style syntax be very forgiving of
> order,
> but having a suggested ordering? Tools should then try to
> serialize in
> the suggested order (perhaps with an option to not do so) but would
> accept "out-of-order" inputs.
yeah. that was the basic intention.
> So for ontologies, the suggested order could be annotations first (in
> some order), followed by imports, followed by declaration and entity
> annotation then class then object property then data property then
> individual axioms (each in some order). However, the function-style
> syntax would be something like
>
> ontology := 'Ontology' '(' ontologyURI
> { importDeclaration | annotation | axiom }
> ')'
I'm pretty indifferent to exactly how we spec this. One could always
have a tighter grammar and then relax things.
> By the way, it appears that the UML diagram for ontologies is not
> quite
> right. Shouldn't the imports of an ontology be ontology names, not
> ontologies?
From a specing api point of view, I would think that the former is
correct.
Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 10:16:59 UTC