Re: comment on Guus's note - Re: [OEP] OWL restrictions

Peter

Take a look at the experimental editor on 
www.co-ode.org/downloads/friends.php

It is late alpha and we would welcome feedback.

The spirit of the style is

Severe_Heart_disease ==	
     Disease AND has_locus SOME (Heart OR is_part_of SOME Heart) AND
                           has_severity SOME Severe_value

That's the style notation we now use in most publications, with 
SOME/ONLY for exists/all and an infix rather than prefix form. Plus the 
obvious AND/OR/NOT for booleans.

This version also includes a notation for qualified cardinality 
constraints.
A version covering datatypes is coming RSN

Detailed questions to Matthew Horridge who is largely responsible for 
the implementation.

As for N3 syntax, it really obscures OWL semantics in favour of the RDF 
representation of those semantics.  The SWBP agreed it would be the 
standard, but I don't think it clarifies things wrt OWL.

Regards

Alan



On 3 Jun 2005, at 13:00, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> I just looked at the note that Guus produced on OWL restrictions.
> On looking it through I was struck (again) at how unreadable even the 
> N3 syntax is.  I was wondering whether Guus had tried using a more 
> readable syntax for the restrictions (and other constructs), and 
> whether that helped with their understanding.
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>
>
>
Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
Department of Computer Science
Unviersity of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
FAX +44 (0) 161 s75 6204
www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
www.clinical-esciences.org
www.co-ode.org