- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:00:12 -0500
- To: "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Frank, > > > 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. woops, the example I intended to make was: class ex:bar ( intersectionOf( property ex:a, property ex:b, property ex:c ) ) that is s/oneOf/intersectionOf/ the point is that wrapping "property ex:a" in "class( property ex:a )" better transmits the intention that the class is the intersection of the classes ... > > 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, > The goal is to produce a concrete syntax for OWL which is _based on_ the abstract syntax in [1] The strategy of the _concrete syntax_ is to closely resemble the abstract syntax such that the mapping between constructs in the concrete syntax and the abstract syntax are immediately obvious. The use of such a concrete syntax is that it may serve as a shorthand notation in which we can transmit examples. A property of the non-XML concrete syntax is that a parser generator can convert the syntax into RDF/XML, given a precise mapping between OWL and RDF/XML. I am in the process of writing a JavaCC grammar for this purpose: http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/ONX.jj this is not yet complete, and I give the URI to show how such a grammar may be used. In the meantime, I have given a set of examples demonstrating how constructs in the non-XML syntax are represented in RDF/XML e.g. DAML+OIL. The charter of the WOWG indicates that DAML+OIL should be used as a starting point, for which deviations need to be justified. I think it should be fair to say that to the extent that the proposed OWL abstract syntax has a clearcut and defined mapping to the DAML+OIL concrete syntax, that any discussions of constructs in [1] should be considered as discussions of the equivalent RDF/XML constructs. Furthermore, to the extent that any abstract syntax proposals for OWL _do_ result in changes to the DAML+OIL syntax, we need a concrete way to evaluate these. I am proposing that a JavaCC grammar (for example) is a concrete way to accomplish this. Sorry if this motivation wasn't more obvious. Jonathan [1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/frame.html
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 17:03:19 UTC