- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:09:58 -0000
- To: "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, The Last Call comment 58 by Matthew Horridge asks us to change the functional-style syntax back to the earlier state, where it was fully typed. Thus, instead of the current class expression SomeValuesFrom( a:P a:C ) we would have the class expression ObjectSomeValuesFrom( a:P a:C ). This change would not affect in any way any of the other syntaxes, OWL/RDF included. The main rationale behind the change is to make functional-style syntax documents easier to parse. I actually sympathize with this comment. After the second F2F when we decided that we don't want strong typing in OWL/RDF, I rather arbitrarily decided to change the functional-style syntax as well. As Matthew's comment shows, however, this had rather unfortunate effects. We can address this comment by changing the functional-style syntax to the earlier state and make it fully typed. Since the primary syntax of OWL 2 is OWL/RDF, and this syntax would not change in any way, I don't think that this would be a problematic change. Let me know how you feel about it. If everyone agrees, I shall draft a response to Matthew along these lines. Regards, Boris
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 20:10:57 UTC