From: Harold Boley (boley@informatik.uni-kl.de)
Date: 11/12/03
Hi Mike, > 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 The intro to section 5 seems a bit out of date.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: > ... Let's keep the symmetric "combination" or "synthesis", as discussed: The XML Concrete Syntax is an combination of the OWL Web Ontology Language XML Presentation Syntax with 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:. I then propose to also keep our previous clear indication for the RuleML namespace. Such multiple namespaces made the OWL RuleML combination immediately possible: ruleml:imp, etc. > 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. Well, swrlx:Ontology is an extension of both owlx:Ontology and ruleml:rulebase. > I'd like to rename section 6 from "Mapping to RDF Graphs" to > "RDF Concrete Syntax". Fine with me because the new XSLT mapping is not worked out yet. > 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:. I remember we wanted to call this swrlr: rather than swrl: (like it was owlr: rather than owl: since neither XML nor RDF is the 'default'). Best, Harold
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/12/03 EST