- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:24:15 -0400
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
At the risk of ticking off the less RDF inclined in the group (for which I sincerely apologize in advance) but in the interest of perhaps making OWL more accessible to the wider SW audience familiar with RDF, I wonder if we should consider some of the choices made in the functional syntax. The sort of thing I have in mind are, for example: Currently: PropertyAssertion( a:parentOf a:Peter a:Chris ) => a:Peter is a parent of a:Chris. First, the order of argument would be more intuitive if it followed the S P O pattern that the triple takes, and it might even be worth calling this Statement(a:Peter a:parentOf a:Chris) to maximize the parallel Similarly, we have now ClassAssertion( a:Person a:Peter ) This differs both from OWL 1, and from the common ordering. This could become InstanceOf(a:Peter a:Person ) or TypeAssertion(a:Peter a:Person) There are other possibilities, but I won't include a complete review here. Rather I wanted to open up the subject to discussion. I realize that one gets attached to names and that these changes might be viewed as unpleasant for some in the working group. So first, let me reassure that it is *not* my intention to offend. Rather I am hoping that despite an initial potential distaste WG members might consider this from the point of view of what might help get the broadest adoption of OWL. Regards, Alan
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 16:31:13 UTC