- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:41:46 +0100
- To: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
- CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Enrico Motta wrote: > Frank, > > quick restatement of the points I made yesterday at the telecon: > > 1) 100% in favour of the approach (owl-frame vs full-owl) Good to hear it. > 2) 'full cardinality' should be in owl-frame I agree it's a judgement call. You could well be right. > 3) full set of property specification properties shoud be in owl-frame > (symmetric, transitive, inverseOf, uniquelyDefining, unambigous, etc..) - Again I agree it's a judgement call, and you could be right. - Notice that "inverseOf" was not in our proposal, so that's not just a move but also an addition. - One inverseOf is added, symmetric comes for free. - I would be interested what falls under your "etc.." (during the teleconf you mentioned that you would like to see others in this list). > 4) drop 'primitive class & defined class terminology. I have not been > able to come up with better alternatives. , so maybe we could use a > different approach and qualify the attribute specs, rather than > classes. For instance > > PrimitiveClass (male, supers(animal)) > > becomes > > Class Male (attributeSpec supers(animal)) > > > DefinedClass (Man, supers(Person, Male)) > > becomes > > Class Man (completelydefiningAttributeSpec supers(Person, Male)) > > A possible extension of this approach could be to allow users to mix > definitional properties with other properties in the same definition - > i.e., attributeSpec and completelydefiningAttributeSpec could also be > used in the same definition. For instance: > > Class Man (completelydefiningAttributeSpec supers(Person, Male), > (attributeSpec slot (hasAge, range=PositiveInteger))) > > The above class spec to be interpreted as stating > > Man (x) <-> (Person (x) and Male (x)) > (Man (x) and hasAge (x, y)) -> PositiveInteger(y) Interesting suggestion. Need to chew on it. Thanks. As promised, I will make sure that all of these comments are gathered in an "annotated version of the language proposal" for the F2F in A'dam. > PS > plus an additional organizational point. Would it be possible to > include the other members of teh subgroup in offline discussions? > Otherwise not sure what is the point of being in one group rather than > another one. Peter, Ian and I prepared the first proposal off-line because we needed something quick to get the ball rolling in the language group. Clearly, the place for discussion is the mailing list. Frank. ----
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 15:42:37 UTC