Talk:Structure and Syntax comments Rinke Hoekstra
What is the difference in interpretation between curly and square braces? Both denote "zero or more instances of a symbol".
Not true. Curly braces denote zero or more, square braces denote zero or one
MikeSmith 10:06, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
You are right, sorry: my misreading.
RinkeHoekstra 00:45, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
structural and functional
To the casual reader it is unclear whether this document describes the data structure of OWL 1.1 ontologies, or the file structure... it seems to describe both? The UML diagrams do not really work for me, but it is hard to think of an alternative
Both, and neither. :-)
Both, in that the UML diagrams give a structure for OWL ontologies and the functional-style syntax gives a linear syntax. Neither, in that the UML diagrams will only be informative (at least I so suspect) and the functional-style syntax may not be approved as a transfer syntax.
A true abstract syntax could be used instead of the UML diagrams. For example, the document could say (more formally) that an ontology consists of a set of annotations and a set of axioms.
Peter Patel-Schneider 01:33, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
I added the missing parenthesis (not bracket) in Section 2. Peter Patel-Schneider 02:13, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
I added a bit on equality of strings/integer/URIs. Peter Patel-Schneider 02:16, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
examples of equality
I don't think that there is a problem here. These are just examples, and don't defined anything.
nesting of components
yes it is possible to arbitrarily nest some components where it may not make too much sense to do so, but there are no problems. For many other components, including datatypeRestriction, nesting is needed. Peter Patel-Schneider 02:29, 29 October 2007 (EDT)