- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:58:07 +0100
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I think this indicates an interesting technique for resolving whether the lite syntax is either: - transformed into triples by already being in RDF/XML (Jonathan's preference?) or: - in an XML concrete syntax corresponding closely to the abstract syntax (Jeff's preference?), and then (my preference) transformed into RDF/XML by XSLT, and then into triples by RDF/XML. The technique is: - the initial (internal) draft is for an XML concrete syntax (uninfluenced by RDF). - advocates of RDF/XML as the syntax demonstrate how with little change it can be made conformant RDF/XML - we also explore how to transform the initial draft XML concrete syntax into an adequate set of triples. I confess to being nervous about the pure RDF/XML option, because of the round tripping problem. A possible solution is to follow Jonathan's suggestion but also (silently) requiring the reification of all the triples in the file and sticking them in a bag. This allows the preservation of (XML) document order. (It's a bit of a hack). Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jonathan Borden > Sent: 05 April 2002 20:24 > To: Jeff Heflin; Ian Horrocks > Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; www-webont-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: WOWG: first language proposal > > > Jeff Heflin wrote: > > > > > Yes, that is basically what I mean. In an earlier message [1], I gave > > some examples of what an XML syntax for WebOnt might look like. One > > example from that message was: > > > > <!-- This says that a trio has three members, all of whom are musicians. > > --> > > <owl:class ID="Trio"> > > <owl:hasProperty ref="#hasMember"> > > <owl:cardinality value="3" /> > > <owl:allvalues> > > <owl:class ref="#Musician" /> > > </owl:allvalues> > > </owl:hasProperty> > > </owl:class> > > but in something RDF compatible: > > <Class rdf:ID="Trio"> > <subClassOf> > <Restriction> > <onProperty rdf:resource="#hasMember"/> > <cardinality>3</cardinality> > <rdf:range rdf:resource="#Musician"/> > </Restriction> > </subClassOf> > </Class> > > which, gosh, isn't all that different, is it? > > Jonathan > > > >
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 15:00:03 UTC