Re: OWL Rules proposal

From: Ian Horrocks (
Date: 10/07/03

  • Next message: Sandro Hawke: "nXML mode"
    On October 7, Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:
    > From: Mike Dean <>
    > 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).
    > peter

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 10/07/03 EST