- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:54:28 -0500
- To: heflin@cse.lehigh.edu
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu> Subject: Re: WOWG: first language proposal Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:43:04 -0500 > Frank et al., > [...] > Now on to my > comments... > > First, I'd like to suggest that we attempt to maintain the frame-nature > of the language for properties as well (kind of like facets). For > example, we could have the productions: > > <definition> ::= Property ( <propertyId> ,<facet>* ) > <facet> ::= <domain> | <range> | <supersprops> | Transitive | > SingleValued | UniquelyIdentifying > <domain> ::= domain( <classId> ) > <range> ::= range( <classId> | <dataTypeRange> ) > <superprops> := supers( <classId>*) > etc. Great idea. Ian Horrocks had a similar idea that was prepared just a bit too late to make it into the initial proposal. > I'd even like to see this idea carried over into the non-frame portion > of the language. What do you think? I'm not sure what it would mean to carry this over into the non-frame portion, except, perhaps, to allow <description> in the frame-like constructs. > Second, I think we should include some kind of syntax to indicate that a > specific set of definition make up an ontology. Perhaps include: > > <ontology> ::= Ontology ( <definition>*) > > This can also serve as a place holder for us to later attach ontology > metadata and versioning information. Again a great idea. Ian and I were just discussing, on the phone, what it would take to do this. Something like a KB is a sequence of ontologies, and each ontology is a sequence of definitions, facts, ontologies, and ontology references. Dublin core information could then be associated with the ontologies. > Third, what are you[r] thoughts on using AND, OR, and NOT instead of > intersectionOf, unionOf, and complementOf (as is done in OIL)? I think > these might be more intuitive, and would certainly be easier for people > to type. I could go either way here. > Finally, an important issue will be finding a way to map your abstract > syntax into XML/RDF and still preserve its simplicity. I believe that in > order to get a good, intuitive syntax, we'll have to seriously consider > dropping the idea of using triples to represent the language, i.e., do > not layer on top of RDF Schema (but this is a point I've already raised > in another thread). Again, a great idea. The abstract syntax sort of alludes to this in that the fact portion is written the way it is so that it can easily be mapped into RDF/XML but the non-fact portion is different from RDF/XML. > Jeff Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 10:56:17 UTC