Re: OWL syntax task force

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Subject: OWL syntax task force
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:35:15 +0100

> 
>  From the draft minutes (to be circulated shortly)""
>  > NEW ACTION: Ian, Jeremy, Peter, Pat, Sean, Guus, ter Horst will work
>  > as task force on discussion and return with results in 1 week with
>  > progress. Probably can't resolve this next week.
> 
> Peter, Ian, Pat, Jeremy, Sean, Jerman,
> 
> I will be on holiday this week, so I will not be able to take part in 
> these discussions until just before the Tech Plenary.
> 
> I propose we use (a large part) of the Tuesday editor's meeting at the 
> Tech Plenary to work through this. I''d like to suggest the following 
> approach:
> 
> - We take the S&AS abstract syntax and Jeremy''s concrete syntax (not
>    his whole document, but the two sections on ""OWL DL/Lite in RDF
>    Graphs".

I'm not sure I understand this, but it looks as if you want to keep the
abstract syntax the same and change the mapping rules.  This is going to be
difficult at best, as Jeremy's abstract syntax has some significant (I
would even call them fundamental) differences from the abstract syntax in
S&AS.   I will be preparing a document this morning on some of the
differences. 

> - We go through the mapping rules and whereever mismatches occur, we do
>    one of the following, in order of preference:
> 
>    * change the mapping rule
>    * change the concrete syntax (Jeremy has already proposed ssome
>      changes to make the mapping easier)
>    * change the abstract syntax (such changes should be kept to the
>      absolute minimum, as it may have consequences for the rest of SAS).

Actually all three of these would have consequences for the rest of S&AS.

> I think this will work, in particular because Jeremy''s last version 
> (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0341.html)
> is much closer to S&AS.

I would call it somewhat closer to S&AS.

> Sorry not to be able to contribute during this week.
> 
> Guus

peter

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 09:03:15 UTC