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

Re: ACTION-215 Review Manchester Syntax Document

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:29:23 +0100
Message-Id: <CACD017A-0B6D-48F9-9BBB-B1AF3F3A1732@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Christine Golbreich" <cgolbrei@gmail.com>

On 8 Oct 2008, at 15:55, Christine Golbreich wrote:
[snip]
> Also, the frame option of M. syntax does not seem consistent with *
> 12.1 Dropping the Frame-Like syntax * as asserted and explained in
> details in that section.

It's consistent enough. The main problem with the OWL 1 frame like  
syntax is that it was embedded deep into the definition of the  
language and in the (implicit) definitions of APIs. Thus, the old OWL  
API required a quite complex chunk of code to gather up all the  
axioms involving a class. (Brutally so.) An axiom oriented API is  
definitely a great thing.

However, it's clear that frame like views are valuable as that  
section indicates. RDF/XML *has a frame like view* itself. There's a  
clear mapping from ManSyntax to Functional Syntax, so there's no real  
issue.

> Besides, the frame-based display of  M.
> syntax, perhaps influenced by the firstProtégé-frames tool,

Actually, it's trying to fit in with the current P4.

> may be
> misleading about OWL 2 which (unlike OWL 1) does not provide a
> frame-like syntax.

I don't think so. There are several different syntaxes, some with and  
some without frameishness.

> This is one reason, among others,

It would be more convincing to have all the reasons as this one isn't  
convincing.

> why I am not so enthusiastic about
> having  the M. syntax presented as a syntax with a particular status,
> though already being supported by different tools and having some
> "user-friendly" aspect.

We *are* going to have it in the primer (it would be absurd not to).  
Some people think that if we have it in the primer, we need to have a  
WG document for it.

Personally, I think documenting and sanctioning de facto standards is  
a very worthwhile task. I'd need a pretty powerful argument to rule  
out doing so. Having a nice grammar like this will improve tools and  
tool interop and potentially affect more OWL users than the other  
syntaxes!

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 15:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC