From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 11/11/03
From: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com> Subject: easy question about Rules proposal Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:03:36 -0800 > Folks (esp. Ian and Peter) - > > I have a question about the Ian/Peter Rules Language proposal, which is > minor but important in the sense that I want to get some examples right > in something I'm writing. > > Why in the following example (and I think all the examples in > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML/Rules/) > is "owlx:name" used, both at point of definition and point of reference, > instead of using rdf:ID and rdf:resource? Because this is not RDF/XML, but is instead an extension of the OWL XML presentation syntax (for a pointer see the proposal itself), and conforms to that syntax. I note that the OWL XML presentation syntax uses owlx as a namespace reference; there is no commitment (yet) as to whether the OWL rules should share namespaces with the OWL XML presentation syntax. peter > <owlx:Rule> > <owlx:antecedent> > <owlx:individualPropertyAtom owlx:property="hasParent"> > <owlx:Variable owlx:name="x1" /> > <owlx:Variable owlx:name="x2" /> > </owlx:individualPropertyAtom> > <owlx:individualPropertyAtom owlx:property="hasBrother"> > <owlx:Variable owlx:name="x2" /> > <owlx:Variable owlx:name="x3" /> > </owlx:individualPropertyAtom> > </owlx:antecedent> > <owlx:consequent> > <owlx:individualPropertyAtom owlx:property="hasUncle"> > <owlx:Variable owlx:name="x1" /> > <owlx:Variable owlx:name="x3" /> > </owlx:individualPropertyAtom> > </owlx:consequent> > </owlx:Rule> > > Thanks, > David
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/11/03 EST