Re: RDF Concrete Syntax

From: Ian Horrocks (
Date: 11/16/03

  • Next message: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 18 November"
    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).
    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]
    > [2]
    > [3]
    > [4]

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/16/03 EST