- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:09:07 -0500
- To: "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Frank van Harmelen wrote: > As per our action item from March 7, we have prepared a first language > proposal, for discussion in this weeks teleconf, and as the basis for further > work by the language focus group. > > At http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/ > you will find three documents: > > - A short motivation of our design and choices (2pgs) > - An annotated example to give you the flavour (walkthrough) (5pgs) > - The language definition as a simple grammar (5pgs) On a first pass I like it very much. 1) The abstract syntax is intuitive and easy to read. It should be readily possible to generate the full XML from this. 2) Is it true that the main difference between "Lite" and full "OWL" is that the full version allows nested subClassOf definitions? If so, does this justify a different name for the language? i.e. use of named and anonymous types is not something difficult to grasp for the, e.g. XML developer who has written a few DTDs or schemata. 3) Can we call "slots", "properties" which is slightly less idiomatic -- and better understood by people not as familiar with the "frame" terminology. All in all an excellent first pass. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 08:27:19 UTC