[closed] Re: Some comments on OWL S&AS

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 22:09:15 -0400 (EDT)
• To: yzqu@seu.edu.cn
• Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20030511.220915.132769583.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

Thanks.

peter


From: "Yuzhong Qu" <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: Some comments on OWL S&AS
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:19:49 +0800

> 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

Received on Sunday, 11 May 2003 22:09:26 UTC