Re: LANG: OWL non-xml syntax


A specific point and a general point:

Specific point:

Jonathan Borden wrote:

> class ex:baz (
>         oneOf(
>                     property ex:a,
>                     property ex:b,
>                     property ex:c
>         )
> would not _have been_ immediately obvious to me, 

this is not a legal construction in our proposal for OWL [1] (nor is it in 
DAML+OIL [2]). In both of these, oneOf defines a class by enumerating all its 
instances. That's not what the above does.

General point:
Forgive me for asking, but I'm a bit at a loss as to the goal of your efforts. 
- Is your goal to make a better abstract syntax for the proposal in [1]?
- If so, better in what sense? Easier to XML-ise? Easier to parse?
   By machines? By humans?
- Or making our proposal in [1] more like DAML+OIL? In what way.

Can you explain (or perhaps: repeat) what you are aiming for?
Sorry if this is a question I should have known the answer to,



Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 16:21:16 UTC