- From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:06:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
- To: Masahiro Hori <HORIM@jp.ibm.com>
- cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Masahiro Hori wrote:
>
> > >> This means that individuals can only be given types
> > >> which are named classes, rather than arbitrary class
> > >> descriptions. Is this right?
> >
> > As far as the individuals are concerned, that's true.
> > The syntax actually reflects to the Abstract Syntax [1]
> > in particular the following portion (Section 2.2 Facts):
>
> Ok. In that case my question is "is the Abstract Syntax right?"
I'll answer that myself :-). A glance at 2.2. in [1] gives:
[[
<fact> ::= <individual>
<individual> ::= Individual( [<individualID>] {<annotation>}
{type(<type>)} {<propertyValue>} )
Facts are the same in OWL Lite and the full abstract syntax, except for
what can be a type. In OWL Lite, types can be classIDs or OWL Lite
restrictions
<type> ::= <classID>
| <restriction>
In the full abstract syntax types can be general descriptions, which
include classIDs and OWL Lite restrictions
<type> ::= <description>
]]
My interpretation of this is that individuals can be given types which
are arbitrary descriptions, which suggests that the XML-Schema and the
Abstract Syntax are not in synch.
Cheers,
Sean
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-semantics-20021108/semantics-all.html
--
Sean Bechhofer
seanb@cs.man.ac.uk
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 05:06:18 UTC