Re: LANG: feedback on owl proposal

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.

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.


Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 15:42:37 UTC