Re: Concrete Syntaxes

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

  • Next message: Sandro Hawke: "Re: notes from 11/11/03 JC telecon on Rules and preparing W3 Note"
    > > 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.
    I think the underlying issue is that one can re-use elements
    from other DTDs/schemas/namespaces as self-contained
    subtrees within an XML tree (as we would for OWL class
    definitions embedded within rules), but not for modified
    interior elements.
    Note that such reuse is fine in RDF, because one could
    define, for example, swrl:ClassAtom as a subclass of
    ruleml:Atom.  Such extensibility is one of the advantages of
    One could define another SWRL-specific RuleML
    namespace and split the definitions between swrl: and
    ruleml:, but that seems to overly-burden the user just to
    achieve ancestral symmetry.
    Another alternative is to always use a single swrl:
    namespace, but I had been hoping to re-use the current owlx:
    elements without having to specifically copy them.
    I realize that I'm correlating namespaces with DTDs/Schemas,
    etc. here, but that's because I feel it's essential that the
    namespace URI be resolvable to a document that tools can use
    to check content.

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