From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 11/16/03
Mike, I must admit to having doubts about the utility, and perhaps even the wisdom, of producing such schemas. One problem is that, as you point out, you really the expressive power of OWL to say anything useful about the structure of the language. Even then, you don't really get what you want because rules with two heads (say) are not "illegal" (as we would like), we just get an inference that both heads should have the same interpretation (whatever that means). Ian On November 12, Mike Dean writes: > I created swrl.rdf [1] (dumpont [2]) using only RDF Schema > following the lead of WebOnt, but was a bit dissatisfied > with the clarity of the result, so I also created swrl.owl > [3] (dumpont [4]). How concerned are folks with separating > the RDF encoding from OWL? > > After we publish the rules proposal, we should develop a > corresponding swrl.xsd XML Schema for the XML Concrete > Syntax (importing the XML Schema(s) for the OWL XML > Presentation Syntax). > > Mike > > [1] http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/swrl.rdf > > [2] http://www.daml.org/cgi-bin/dumpont?www.daml.org/rules/proposal/swrl.rdf > > [3] http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/swrl.owl > > [4] http://www.daml.org/cgi-bin/dumpont?www.daml.org/rules/proposal/swrl.owl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/16/03 EST