

Re: First pass at DAML/OIL mapping

From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:29:47 -0400
Message-Id: <200010041616.MAA01957@cam-mbx1.bbn.com>
To: Lynn Andrea Stein <las@ai.mit.edu>
cc: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jim Hendler <jhendler@darpa.mil>, sw-team@w3.org, stefan@db.stanford.edu, John Flynn <jflynn@bbn.com>, thash@bbn.com
>     http://www.w3.org/2000/08/daml-ont.rdf:
>          $Id: daml-ont.rdf,v 1.4 2000/09/27 22:05:57 connolly Exp $
>     http://www.w3.org/2000/08/daml-ex.rdf
>          $Id: daml-ex.rdf,v 1.4 2000/09/27 22:05:57 connolly Exp $

Thanks for these pointers.

A few comments:

1) File names.  Folks will use these as a template for their
initial DAML work.

   Why isn't it daml-ont.rdfs instead of .rdf?

   Should daml-ex be daml-ex.daml instead of daml-ex.rdf?

   I think it would be good to get people in the habit of
   using datespace, e.g. daml-ont-20000927.rdfs and

2) We should also distribute an example containing instances
from daml-ex.daml, e.g. clinton.daml:

  <Man ID="Bill Clinton"/>
  <Woman ID="Hillary Clinton"/>
  <Woman ID="Chelsea Clinton">
    <father rdf:resource="#Bill Clinton"/>
    <mother rdf:resource="#Hillary Clinton"/>
  <Animal ID="Socks"/>

3) In daml-ex

    parent should specify a range of #Animal as well as a

    Why is mother a UniqueProperty and father a property
    with cardinality 1?

    father should have a range of Male (rather than Man) or
    a domain of Person.

    Restricting occupation to cardinality 1 is likely to
    unnecessarily raise eyebrows.

    The Car complementOf Person example seems strange.  It
    seems like this says that Car is a subclass of
    everything but Person.  Can't "no car is a person" be
    expressed using disjointWith instead?

4) Will we get some narrative text like
http://www.w3.org/2000/08/DAML-0-5 in addition to the code

5) How quickly do we expect/hope to have software that can
parse/validate these examples?  I just tried using RDF API,
and it choked on the Ontology imports.

Thanks!  Things look good.

Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 12:16:43 GMT
