- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 17:47:40 +0200
- To: jonathan@openhealth.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...] > My current impression is that some method of using RDF triples for purely > syntactic purposes in OWL is needed -- indeed: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0087.html, is yet > another example of why syntactic triples are needed. > > My current preference would be some way, perhaps a triple, of stating that a > particular predicate is to be used for syntactic purposes, i.e. as a > syntactic . e.g. > > <owl:List> <rdf:type> <rdf:syntax> . > > or > > <owl:List> <rdf:subClassOf> <rdf:Syntax> . > > would either jibe with the RDF MT? If so, this would seem to be an easy > change that wouldn't be too intrusive on any syntax (though would require > support from RDF Schema 'inferencing engines'). Dan? Jos? On the other hand I have experience that asserting acyclic descriptions isn't harmful e.g. besides asserting :John a [ ont:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) ] . (and having the object as a functional term) there is nothing going wrong when we also assert :John a _:905719 . _:905719 ont:intersectionOf _:5488661 . _:5488661 owl:first :Student . _:5488661 owl:rest _:6794265 . _:6794265 owl:first :Employee . _:6794265 owl:rest owl:nil . Also on the other hand I have experience that in the presence of (vicious) cycles a sound proof argument can never contain them if -top-level- assertions of negated consequents are not allowed. -- Jos
Received on Sunday, 12 May 2002 11:48:18 UTC