- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:48:31 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
There are choices that could be made.
1) That the model is of the functional grammar, and that API
developers ignore ordering information. This ties the model more
tightly with the goals of the document, which is to expose the syntax
2) That additional attributes be added to the model to indicate which
choices are made for the functional syntax.
In my view, if the model is part of this document, it should reflect
what the document says. Either of the above choices would do that.
(there may be others)
-Alan
On Jul 31, 2008, at 7:42 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
> On 31 Jul 2008, at 08:48, Michael Schneider wrote:
> Adding ordering to the diagram would import concrete details into
> the abstract view.
>
> Think of it this way: Suppose you wanted to use dictionary/hash
> tables as your api. So a class assertion would be something like:
>
> {"type": "ClassAssertion";
> "Annotations":[];
> "Individual": someURi;
> "ClassExpression": someClassExpression}
>
> Oh NOES! I got the sequence of individual and classexpression wrong
> way around!!!
>
> Obviously, it doesn't matter for this linear syntax, so the above
> reaction would be incorrect.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 11:49:14 UTC