- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:21:09 -0500
- To: "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
It is often helpful to have a non-XML syntax, which is often more human readable. In the process of merging the proposed OWL abstract syntax with DAML+OIL, and in creating this non-XML syntax in the process, a few issues have arisen (this is why this process is often helpful) First an simple example of the non-XML syntax: http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/Schema.onx -- note that I am using the "onx" suffix for "OWL Non-xml" Second, the simple Schema from which this was derived: http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/Schema.owl Third, the surface syntax, http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/OWLnonXMLsyntax.txt which is derived from http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/frame.html , note that this is not yet complete pending resolution of these issues, (and perhaps a few others :-)) 1: What distinguishes "DefinedClass" from "PrimitiveClass", there is nothing in the abstract syntax which helps? 2: What is the syntactic differenence between an "Individual" and a "Fact"? Note that one of the features which distinguishes this from the abstract syntax is that it is LALR(1) i.e. a JavaCC version should be able to emit DAML+OIL XML format as is done with RELAXNG non-XML -> RELAXNG XML format. If this format is useful, then I will procede to write a tool which translates to the RDF/XML format of OWL. Jonathan
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 12:40:07 UTC