- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:01:35 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 2:35 PM -0400 5/16/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >TITLE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions >DESCRIPTION: DAML+OIL allows for restrictions that are malformed. > Restrictions with missing components (e.g., a > restriction with no daml:onProperty triple) have no > semantic impact, even though treating them as RDF would > indicate that there should be some semantic import. > Restrictions with extra components (e.g., a restriction with > daml:onProperty triples to more than one property) have > unusual and misleading semantic impact (in general equating > the extensions of two or more well-formed restrictions). > > Both of these should be syntactically illegal in OWL. >RAISED BY: Peter F. Patel-Schneider >STATUS: RAISED > Peter - issues shouldn't include solutions (i.e. that these should be syntactically illegal in OWL) - maybe "Perhaps both of these should..." would be better wording? Also, please explain what you mean by syntactically illegal? My understanding is that we decided we would use RDF/XML as the exchange language, and triples graphs to convey meaning, so how would you keep these from being syntactically expressible? Semantically illegal I understand, syntactically I don't understand thanks JH -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 18:02:26 UTC