- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:38:18 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
- Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> Subject: Re: General discussion for TC Wednesday 2008-04-21 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:33:51 +0100 > > On Apr 21, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > [snip] > > Syntax: The proposal suggests using the serialization proposed by the > RIF BLD[2] for easy keys. > > No. The proposal suggest that the *translation to a rule* can be given > using RIF. EasyKeys have their own functional syntax and I'll insert a > proposal for mapping to RDF tomorrow. The basic outline is easy enough, > something like: > > aClass owl:hasKey (list of key Properties) > > > A quick glance at the document cited reveals only an XML syntax, and > the RIF/RDF/OWL documentation[3] suggests that combinations of RIF and > RDF be made by way of using multiple documents. Is there a RDF syntax > proposed, and if not are we comfortable with having key axioms specified > in a non-RDF syntax. > > I've put the proposal into the Wiki. > > > Documentation: What impact would adding Easy Keys have on our user > facing documentation? > > There will be something in the Reference, of course, and I would suggest > having it in the primer as well. It's a popular feature. > > Cheers, > Bijan. It would be useful to update the pointer in the agenda to reflect these corrections and updates in the "discussion points". peter
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 14:41:07 UTC