RE: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions

I went over some of this in my response to Jeremy a while back

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0085.html

The fact that the F2F decided triples would be the exchange syntax does not
require that the definition of OWL syntax be given in triples. It would seem
to permit a translation process, say from an XML-based OWL syntax. And that
syntax could be more restrictive.  If OWL must accommodate all triples, then
it must give an interpretation to all RDF, which is something Peter is
trying to avoid.

As far as I am concerned, "triples" are only marginally syntax.  One point
of syntax is to help free the semantics from complicated statements about
when a term is meaningless.  

In propositional calculus, the 'meaning' of "A and and and or B" doesn't
come up.  And it would not be a feature if it could.

- Mike

Michael K. Smith
EDS Austin Innovation Centre
98 San Jacinto, #500
Austin, TX 78701
512 404-6683

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 5:02 PM
> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE: Malformed DAML+OIL Restrictions
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 17 May 2002 11:38:49 UTC