- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:22:57 +0000
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On February 26, Jim Hendler writes: > At 10:11 -0500 2/26/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >Here is my summary of the differences between the two approaches. I may be > >missing some differences. > > > >peter > > A couple of comments on a few of these: > > > > > > >Substantive Differences in Abstract Syntax > > > > > > > >Jeremy - can name data valued oneOfs > >S&AS - can't name data valued oneOfs > > IMHO this could be a valuable construct - for example the reference > manual has an example of the list of "0 15 30 40" which is the > possible numeric tennis scores. Being able to name that list would > be valuable in a system reasoning about sports statistics (which is > one of the actual use cases in my research group - we're doing > client-side presentation of sports information based on various > ontologies of sport). Naming it seems like a bad idea. It would effectively introduce an OWL mechanism for defining datatypes, whereas we are supposed to be relying on XMLS for that. > > > >Jeremy - incorporates some RDF container vocabulary > >S&AS - forbids RDF container vocabulary > > certainly Full must include the containers, right? We believe all > RDF Documents are Full (with the possible exception of those which > abuse the owl: namespace) From AS&S: "this abstract syntax should be thought of a syntax for OWL DL" Ian
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 12:24:07 UTC