- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:33:26 +1000
- To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'OWL 1.1'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, I wouldn't say that all people don't like the functional syntax; however, let's not argue about this point. One of the reasons why we have the functional syntax is that it provides us with a way to define tables in the RDF Mapping and the Semantics. You can't really put diagrams in these tables (or, better said, one could do that, but I'm not going to do that :-). The functional-style syntax lends itself well for such purposes because it is reasonable concise while being at least to some degree human-readable. Thus, the functional-style syntax adds only some pragmatics to the spec. It does not add anything to the language from the definition/structural point of view. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg > Sent: 13 August 2008 04:13 > To: OWL 1.1 > Subject: What is added by functional syntax? > > > Hypothetically, if we had only had the object/metamodel, and > documented the global restrictions on axioms in terms of the > metamodel, what would we lose (other than a syntax that not many are > likely to use). > > Thanks, > > -Alan >
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 21:35:11 UTC