From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 10/07/03
On October 7, Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes: > From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com> > Subject: Re: OWL Rules proposal > Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 05:40:25 -0700 > > > Would it be reasonable to add an Annotation element to Rule, > > like we have for Ontology, Class, Variable, etc.? This > > would provide at least some means of passing additional > > information (e.g. URI rule name, priority, etc.) through to > > a rule engine. > > > > Mike > > I see no real reason not to do this. It would be quite easy in the > abstract syntax. I'm not sure if the XML presentation syntax has been > upgraded to annotations, but if it has, then the translation would be > fairly simple as well. Done (it was already there in the XML presentation syntax). See [1]. I also fixed the parseType syntax bug and changed the namespace used by RDF/XML rule syntax to "owlr" (thanks Mike). Ian [1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML/Rules/ > > peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 10/07/03 EST