Re: OWL++@en
"""There are several significant additions, and the primary
specification is done in an different fashion than OWL (with a new
Functional-Style Syntax)."""
The new functional-style syntax is a variant of the abstract syntax (we changed the name because the old syntax wasn't actually abstract). OWL semantics was always specified in terms of the abstract/functional syntax and never directly in terms of RDF graphs. See: <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/>
There are changes to the functional syntax for (good) I think reasons, but direct use of the functional/abstract syntax isn't widespread (I know only one person who actually uses it to write ontologies; and he's a LISP hacker).
OWL 1.1 really is an incremental change, but it's an incremental change on several parts of the language, done with hindsight. For example, having and XML non-RDF syntax isn't new...WebOnt never got it to Rec but did release it as a note. And that's a broadening feature, because it makes it *much* easier to sell to XML folks (they can fruitful use XML tools for example).@en
The new functional-style syntax is a variant of the abstract syntax (we changed the name because the old syntax wasn't actually abstract). OWL semantics was always specified in terms of the abstract/functional syntax and never directly in terms of RDF graphs. See: <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/>
There are changes to the functional syntax for (good) I think reasons, but direct use of the functional/abstract syntax isn't widespread (I know only one person who actually uses it to write ontologies; and he's a LISP hacker).
OWL 1.1 really is an incremental change, but it's an incremental change on several parts of the language, done with hindsight. For example, having and XML non-RDF syntax isn't new...WebOnt never got it to Rec but did release it as a note. And that's a broadening feature, because it makes it *much* easier to sell to XML folks (they can fruitful use XML tools for example).@en
2006-11-22T18:21:11Z
Powered by Gradino