Re: Concrete Syntaxes

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

  • Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: notes from 11/11/03 JC telecon on Rules and preparing W3 Note"
    > The XML Concrete Syntax is a combination of the OWL Web
    > Ontology Language XML Presentation Syntax with
    > the RuleML XML syntax.  This has several advantages:
    That's also fine with me.
    > 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.
    The problem is that none of the ruleml: DTDs or XML Schemas
    know to expect classAtom, individualPropertyAtom, etc. as
    subelements - only swrl: will know about these.  This is
    somewhat analogous to swrlx:Ontology extending owlx:Ontology.
    > Well, swrlx:Ontology is an extension of both owlx:Ontology
    > and ruleml:rulebase.
    > 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').
    OWL uses owl: for its RDF namespace, not owlr:.  Sandro
    registered the corresponding swrl: and swrlx:.

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