- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:09:07 -0400
- To: michael.smith@eds.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
Subject: Abstract syntax document
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:00:47 -0500
> In M:\projects\semanticWeb\WebOntology\FaceToFace2\Formal Specification of
> the OWL Web Ontology Language.htm
>
> <individual> ::= Individual( [<individualID>] {type=<classID>}
> {<propertyValue>} )
> <propertyValue> ::= ( <individualvaluedPropertyID> <individual> )
> | ( <datavaluedPropertyID> <dataLiteral> )
>
> Should the <propertyValue> production be changed so that <individual> is
> <individualID>?
This would prevent the RDF style of putting whole (or pieces of)
individuals inside others.
> Or
>
> <propertyValue> ::= ( <individualvaluedPropertyID> <individualRef> ) | ...
> <individualRef> ::= <individual> | <individualID>
This might be an improvement. however, note, that the abstract syntax is
an *abstract* syntax, so notions of compactness are not particularly
important.
> Otherwise, to say that Bob is the individual married to Sue I need
>
> Individual( Bob type=Person ( marriedTo INDIVIDUAL(Sue) ))
>
> - Mike
peter
Received on Saturday, 29 June 2002 00:09:18 UTC