Re: syntax task force - differences between the two approaches

I've not yet done a detailed read of this, but it looks very helpful.

Jeremy

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Here is my summary of the differences between the two approaches.  I may be
> missing some differences.
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> Substantive Differences in Abstract Syntax
> 
> Jeremy - all ontology information in an abstract ontology is in a header
>   construct 
>        - allows imports, etc, for multiple ontology resources in a single
>          ontology 
> S&AS   - abstract ontologies have a (single) optional name
>        - all imports, etc. work off this name (or an unnamed resource)
> 
> Jeremy - all names in abstract syntax need tags
> S&AS   - names in abstract syntax are not tagged
> 
> Jeremy - can name data valued oneOfs
> S&AS   - can't name data valued oneOfs
> 
> Jeremy - incorporates some RDF container vocabulary
> S&AS   - forbids RDF container vocabulary
> 
> Jeremy - allows rdf:XMLLiteral
> S&AS   - forbids rdf:XMLLiteral
> 
> Jeremy - forbids unused owl: vocabulary (but not unused rdf: rdfs: or xsd:
>   vocabulary) 
> S&AS   - allows any unused vocabulary
> 
> Jeremy - top-level unnamed descriptions (and restrictions) allowed in
>   abstract syntax
> S&AS   - unnamed descriptions (and restrictions) can only occur inside
>   other constructs in the abstract syntax
> 
> Jeremy - non-DL properties (properties that are neither object or data
>          properties) are divided into annotation properties and
>          meta properties (should instead be ontology properties)
>        - annotation properties can only relate to individuals and data
>          values
>        - ontology properties are a fixed, predefined set
> S&SA   - non-DL properties are not sub-divided
>        - non-DL properties can relate to any resource
> 
> Jeremy - annotation properties (but not ontology properties) have a
>   declaration that can have annotations 
> S&AS   - no declaration for annotation properties
> 
> Jeremy - only binary equivalence and disjointness for classes
>          (not a semantic restriction, of course)
> S&AS   - n-ary equivalence and disjointness for classes
> 
> Jeremy - impossible to state some different/same patterns for unnamed
>   individuals 
> S&AS   - impossible to state any different/same patterns for unnamed
>   individuals 
> 
> Jeremy - forbid complex single-property restrictions
> S&AS   - allow complex single-property restrictions
> 
> 
> Differences in development
> 
> Jeremy - syntax includes side condition on non-simple properties not
>   allowed in cardinality-restricting constructs
> S&AS   - condition is a side condition
> 
> 
> Substantive Differences in Mapping Rules not necessitated by differences in
> the Abstract Syntax
> 
> Jeremy  - all names need rdf:type triples
> S&AS    - ontologies and annotation properties do not need rdf:type triples
> 
> 
> Bugs 
> 
> Jeremy - missing rdfs:seeAlso
>        - rdfs:comment has wrong category
>        - rdfs:isDefinedBy has multiple categories which is not supportable
>        - lots of grammar ambiguities (but only benign ones)
> 
> S&AS   - lots of grammar ambiguities (but only benign ones?)
>        - ....
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 11:05:47 UTC