From: Mike Dean (mdean@bbn.com)
Date: 11/12/03
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 The intro to section 5 seems a bit out of date.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 element. 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 rdf:. 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. Thoughts? Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/12/03 EST