Re: XML schema comments

On 27 Aug 2008, at 11:22, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

>
> Hi Boris,
>
> On 27 aug 2008, at 12:10, Boris Motik wrote:
>> Thanks Rinke. I'll implement right away your comments about the  
>> ordering of various productions: it is clearly a good idea for the
>> productions to be ordered in exactly the same way as in the Syntax  
>> document.
>
> Good! :)
>
>> The only comment I don't necessarily agree is regarding the order  
>> of elements inside assertions. In the Syntax document, we've used
>> the order that is compatible with first-order logic: predicates  
>> come before the arguments. Thus, in class assertions we have the
>> class expressions before the individuals, and in property  
>> assertions we have the property, then the source, and then the target
>> individual. I'd prefer keeping things this way.
>
> I guess, FOL syntax aside, it depends on the perspective you have  
> on what a ClassAssertion means: either you're saying something  
> about a class, or you're saying something about an individual. Even  
> though they mean the same thing, the former is more intuitive from  
> a FOL/DL perspective, but the latter is more intuitive to users  
> (cf. the individuals tab in Protege).
>
> I remember Alan mentioning something similar once as well in [1]  
> (though I think the PSO vs SPO distinction is less confusing).

Right, so uniformity plays a role too. PSO and CI (class-individual)  
are more uniform. Just consider extracting all the individuals from a  
set of axioms. Having a uniform syntax like that is nice. (Indeed,  
you can entirely do away with Class vs. Property assertion in lots of  
cases and just play off the arity).

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 11:03:33 UTC