From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 11/12/03
On November 12, Harold Boley writes: > Hi Benjamin, > > > > o variable naming: string/literal vs. a local URI > > > > currently in RuleML syntax is a string/literal, > > we can keep that in the short term for the XML version > > > > disadvantage in RDF view: don't want to declare a literal > > to be a variable for the entire Web universe > > > > local URI is local to a document, e.g., rulebase > > > > Harold: can view it as defining a separate alphabet of variable names, > > local to a document > > > > this requires a change to the working draft of the OWL RuleML document > > > The XML version's <swrlx:var>x1</swrlx:var> etc. was fine. > The RDF version's <owlr:argument1 rdf:resource="#x1"/>, referring to > <owlr:Variable rdf:ID="x1"/>, was accepted for the time being, e.g., > because of the below-mentioned possibility for confusion. > > "Local URIs" used for implicitly universally quantified rule variables > should actually be local to every single rule of a rulebase, to reflect > the (narrow) scope of logic variables. > > Today's RuleML SC telecon will also talk about this. > > > BTW, I updated Section 6. Mapping to RDF Graphs > (http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/rdfsyntax.html), > and now hand it back to Ian, Peter, and Mike. The new section 6 has magically acquired the status of a W3C candidate rec! Also, the change hasn't propagated to the combined HTML file. > > > TBD: > > > > We should discuss the correspondence between the XML and RDF syntax. It is pretty obvious, and we already mention the style sheet - I would say that is enough at this stage. > > We should explain that, e.g., <owlr:Variable rdf:ID="x1"/> > is not to be confused with a "global variable declaration" > in programming languages, where types and initializations could be added: > it just declares that "x1 is in the alphabet of variables". Sure, why not. > > We could explain why the other ('literal') option was not chosen, > at least for the time being. I do NOT believe that we should start explaining why we didn't do things in other ways. > > We could show an actual RDF *Graph*. Why? Not worth it! > > We could try to show how *any* rule can be mapped this way. We might state it, although it is pretty obvious (we have a XSLT translation from XML to RDF). Attempting some sort of proof does not seem necessary (at least not for this document). Ian > > > Best, > Harold
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/12/03 EST