- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 23:14:02 +0100
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
------- start of forwarded message ------- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk> To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:47:31 +0100 Subject: Re: WOWG: first language proposal Reply-To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk> On April 5, Jonathan Borden writes: > 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? But some problems that now arise are: 1. Various parts of the syntactic structure are given unwanted logical significance by RDF. 2. Unlike in the XML form, it is difficult/impossible to restrict the syntax to just this form, so we have to be able to cope with things like: <Class rdf:ID="Trio"> <subClassOf> <Restriction> <onProperty rdf:resource="#hasMember"/> <onProperty rdf:resource="#playsMusicBy"/> <cardinality>3</cardinality> <cardinality>5</cardinality> <rdf:range rdf:resource="#Musician"/> <rdf:range rdf:resource="#Composer"/> </Restriction> </subClassOf> </Class> It would be much more straightforward to have the parser reject this as invalid (F)OWL - which we easily can do if we adopt Jeff's solution. Ian > > Jonathan > > ------- end of forwarded message -------
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 17:16:27 UTC