Concrete Syntaxes

From: Mike Dean (
Date: 11/12/03

  • Next message: Harold Boley: "Re: Concrete Syntaxes"
    Here are some suggested changes for sections 5 and 6.  If
    others agree, I'll be glad to make them.
    The intro to section 5 seems a bit out of date.  I'd suggest
    something like
      The XML Concrete Syntax is an augmentation of the OWL Web
      Ontology Language XML Presentation Syntax with elements
      from the RuleML XML syntax.  This has several advantages:
    I'd like to modify my previous suggestion that we use one
    namespace.  Where we're borrowing elements directly from
    owlx, I think we should use owlx:; otherwise, I think we
    should use swrlx:.  Any XML element should include an
    explicit namespace.  We should use swrlx:Ontology because
    it's an extension of owlx:Ontology.  The owlx:name or
    swrlx:name attributes will correspond to the containing
    I'd like to rename section 6 from "Mapping to RDF Graphs" to
    "RDF Concrete Syntax".
    Corresponding to the above suggestion for section 5, all
    classes and properties in section 6 should use the swrl:
    namespace, except those directly referenced from owl: or
    We should reference swrl.rdf and/or swrl.owl.
    Is there a reason to use swrl:propertyPredicate and
    swrl:classPredicate rather than just swrl:property and
    swrl:class?  The current names seem excessive and might
    cause some confusion with rdf:predicate.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/12/03 EST