Re: LANG: first sketch

Smith, Michael K wrote:

> Great document.


> Two comments.
> 1. Negation and disjunction considered hard?
> I would place these in the class "easy to understand by our target
> group".  Is your categorization due to complexity for tool
> builders/reasoners?

Certainly reasoning etc becomes harder when disjunctions are involved.

For the "target group", of course we can argue about this. My experience is that:
- people don't use union of classes all that much
- the only use of negation is for disjointness statements,
   and these are included as separate items
Also: people can't/don't deal with nestings of these.
But I agree, it's certainly an area where I can well imagine we go the other 
way than our "first stab".

> 2. Syntax (nag, nag, nag)
> Determining the semantic components of OWL should be our priority,
> no question.
> The only thing I take exception to here is "we expect that
> a single syntax won't do".  I don't know quite what that means.  In
> one sense, I agree whole-heartedly, let a thousand flowers bloom.
> That said, we are defining a language.  There must be a rigorous
> statement of what the sentences of that language are.  These are the
> strings for which our semantics will provide a meaning.
> One syntax description will be primary.  Nothing prevents anyone from
> providing what they think are better human or machine engineered
> syntax on top of this.  In particular, the WG can specify a
> translation from the definitional syntax to an alternative we deem
> critical.

I agree. One syntax should be primary. The document should have expressed that 
better. I think your last paragraph says it exactly right (provided the 
translation is both ways).


Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 10:47:01 UTC