W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: What is added by functional syntax?

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:21:24 -0400
Message-ID: <48A23714.2050703@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
CC: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, 'Alan Ruttenberg' <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'OWL 1.1'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

at this point, i am not going to take a strong position on the one or 2 
preferred syntax choice.
i would like us to consider choosing one or two as the "typical" or 
"preferred" syntax options.
i agree that many cause challenges but one or 2 preferred with many 
mappings may fit the bill.

if i were to choose i would consider one that is more accessible to the 
masses and one that is more amenable to formal use.


Jim Hendler wrote:
> so let me ask Alan's question a little differently -- coming out of 
> this WG will be the functional syntax, the Manchester syntax, and the 
> metamodel (not to mention the XML syntax) -- can we justify all of 
> these, and if so, should we not more include discussion of  the 
> differences and issues in the documents -- personally, I don't care 
> which we use, but having many without clear justification is likely to 
> create confusion -- and I think more confusion is certain to hurt OWL 
> adoption (having 3 subsets was used by many people as an excuse to 
> avoid moving to OWL, now we have multiple profiles and multiple 
> syntaxes -- so we should be as clear as possible as to the differences 
> and uses)
>  -JH
> On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Boris Motik wrote:
>> 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
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would 
> it?." - Albert Einstein
> Prof James Hendler                http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 01:22:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:51 UTC