Re: Response to the review comments of the Syntax document, Sections 9--15

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Boris Motik
<> wrote:

> @Mike, Section 9.4: I don't recall a particular motivation for the properties arguments preceding the class expression. If there is
> no specific motivation, I suggest modifying this so that the class expression is first. This would match the RDF syntax and make
> things a little easier for users. (A change from KeyFor to HasKey or something similar would probably go along with a reorder).
> I've followed Bijan's design here, which, I believe, has followed the usual DL syntax. The common reading is "Such-and-such
> properties are the key for such-and-such class". I personally don't really care about the actual syntax. I haven't, however, changed
> the spec yet: can you please coordinate with Bijan and perhaps the other interested parties?

Bijan and Uli do not object to the change, and Evren, who raised the
issue with me during his RDF document review, supports it.  So, not
hearing objections from others I think we should change from KeyFor to
HasKey and change the argument order so that all serializations (FS,
RDF, XML) align.

Mike Smith

Clark & Parsia

Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 13:25:13 UTC