Re: Some comments on OWL S&AS

It's OK.

Some explanation for my suggestion:
1) Parallel the Abstract Syntax of OWL Lite with OWL DL;
2) More easy to recognize the Lite from DL.

By so doing, we have:
type ::= description (in DL )
type ::= descriptionLite (in Lite)

description ::= classID | restriction|... (in DL )
descriptionLite ::= classID | restriction (in Lite)

Of course,  restriction in Lite is different from restriction in DL. 
Maybe, we should use restrictionLite in Lite instead of restriction. Then, the last one should be replaced by:
descriptionLite ::= classID | restrictionLite (in Lite).

(Note:)
restrictionLite versus restriction
descriptionLite  versus description

In sum, my suggestion is just for making it more easy to understand the difference between the Lite and DL.

Anyway, your decision is crucial.


Thanks for your concern!


Yuzhong Qu


> Again, thank you for your comments.   
> 
> I do not propose to make any change here, as I feel that adding a new kind
> of description does not help the exposition.  
> 
> > Another suggestion to the Abstract Syntax of OWL Lite:
> > 
> > In the current spec,
> > type ::= classID | restriction (in Lite)
> > type ::= description (in DL )
> > super ::= classID | restriction
> > description ::= classID | restriction|...
> > 
> > Please consider the possibility:
> > type ::= descriptionLite (in Lite)
> > super ::= descriptionLite
> > descriptionLite ::= classID | restriction
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks for your concern!
> > 
> > Yuzhong Qu
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> Lucent Technologies
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 11 May 2003 21:19:25 UTC