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