W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2005

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

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:36:39 -0700
Message-ID: <4301AFA5A72736428DA388B73676A3813F6A38@XCH-NW-6V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Alan Rector" <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Peter Patel-Schneider" <pfps@comcast.net>
Cc: "Matthew Horridge" <mhorridge@cs.man.ac.uk>, "co-ode-man" <co-ode@lists.man.ac.uk>, "best-practice" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
At first glance, it was not that easy to figure out, maybe use small
caps?
After I stared a bit longer, it was not too bad. 
 
It was hard to figure out the implied nesting of parens. New lines and
indenting for major conjuncts or disjuncts might be better.
 
e.g.
 
Severe_Heart_disease == 
    Disease AND 
    has_locus SOME (Heart OR is_part_of SOME Heart) AND 
    has_severity SOME Severe_value 
 
Multiple indents would be used for deeper nesting.

============================================ 
Mike Uschold 
Tel: 425 865-3605              Fax: 425 865-2965 
============================================ 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Alan Rector [mailto:rector@cs.man.ac.uk] 
	Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3:35 PM
	To: Peter Patel-Schneider
	Cc: Matthew Horridge; co-ode-man; best-practice
	Subject: 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 
Received on Saturday, 4 June 2005 02:36:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:10 UTC