From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 01/04/01
one more try... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
attached mail follows:
Mike, Ian, everybody, You may recall... [[[ [08:36] <DanC_DC> ACTION IanH: release bio ontology into the daml repository for the presentation syntax experiment. [08:37] *** ircleuser has joined #daml-dc [08:37] <DanC_DC> ACTION: DanC: do a regression test with the bio ontology (maybe wines too) ]]] -- http://www.daml.org/committee/minutes/2000-12-08-irc.txt Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:24:31 GMT Ian provided me with a copy of the ontology; I gave it to Tim, and he turned it into notation 3. Tim, thanks for doing most of the work on this one! Hmm... taking a look, I see some oddities: | <alkali-metal> a rdfs:Class; | :intersectionOf ( | [ | a :Restriction; | :cardinality "1"; cardinality on a restriction (i.e on a class?) Hmm.. that seems to be a problem in the data that you gave me, Ian: |<a:Restriction rdf:about="_anon1033"> | <a:cardinality>1</a:cardinality> | <a:hasValue rdf:resource="&a;Thing"/> | <a:onProperty rdf:resource="part-of"/> |</a:Restriction> Anyway... the idea behind the action item was to prompt discussion on so-called "presentation syntaxes". So... discuss away. It had the happy side-effect of getting TimBL to implement syntactic sugar for lists in N3 ;-) Er... Ian, Tim's copy of the ontology is world-readable. Do we have license for that by now? For background on N3 and such, see: Primer - Getting ino the semantic web and RDF using N3 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:51:26 GMT For some nearby ideas, including a foray into rules, see: Semantic Web Application Platform http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/ Thu, 04 Jan 2001 22:36:21 GMT -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
attached mail follows:
Some files in http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/tambis/
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/tambis/tambis-full.daml
The original file. It is in RDF m&S 1.0 with no DAML lists. It did have
XML entities which the parser I used didn't parse
so an expanded version was what I usde.
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/tambis/tabis-no-ents.daml
This is an entity-expanded version of tambis-full.daml. This has nothing
to tell the machine that that the _anonxxxx identifiers were indeed
anonymous generated Ids and hence implcitly quantified. This is fixed in the
following.
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/tambis/tambis-forSome.n3
This has hand-added the explicit fact that the _anon's are arbitrary
identifiers. (Without this, one cannot output them as subexpressions and
lists and things)
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/tambis/tamis-forSome-1.n3
is the result of reading in tambis-forSome.n3 been read in and processed
and spat out again in N3. It has been sorted just for comaprison. The
machine had to chose an order and for the sake of regression tests, it is
explicitly ordered.
Note daml:Disjoint is a subclass of List. List we have specical syntax for,
but Disjoint we don't. So with Disjoint, you see the raw list structure.
With () you see the shortcut syntax.
I haven't finished regression testing complete loops but this is enough to
show what the formats look like.
I haven't chacld it (should be world, but chacl can't find it) and I have to
go to a lunch appt now - feel frrr
to pass them on in the group who asked.
Tim
nucleic-acid is an interesting one.
Why does this ontology not actuall give the atomic numbed of the elements
while it is at it?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST