Re: XML presentation syntax Schema (modification in AnnotationType)

Sean,

>> 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.

That's right!
I will reflect this spec. into the XML Schema.

Thanks,
-Masahiro

Masahiro Hori, Ph.D.
Group Leader, Programming Models & Tools,
IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
Tel: +81-46-215-4667 / Fax: +81-46-274-4282
Email: horim@jp.ibm.com


                                                                                                                  
                      Sean Bechhofer                                                                              
                      <seanb@cs.man.ac.        To:       Masahiro Hori/Japan/IBM@IBMJP                            
                      uk>                      cc:       www-webont-wg@w3.org                                     
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  Re: XML presentation syntax Schema (modification in      
                      www-webont-wg-req         AnnotationType)                                                   
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                 
                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                  
                      2003/01/09 19:06                                                                            
                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                  




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 09:56:06 UTC