W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2002

Re: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:01:35 -0400
Message-Id: <p0511176fb909dc20d69b@[]>
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

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

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
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 18:02:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:30 UTC