Re: XML presentation syntax Schema (modification in AnnotationType)

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

 <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.




Sean Bechhofer

Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 05:06:18 UTC