From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 03/25/04
From: "Mike Dean" <mdean@bbn.com> Subject: RE: new versions of SWRL draft Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:16:44 -0800 > Thanks, Peter! > > Your updates are now in CVS and at [1]. > Several questions/comments on the XML Syntax: > > I assume swrlx:dataRange addresses the class/datatype checking inconsistency > you mentioned on this week's telecom. Yes. (Note that there is an extra i-object in the abstract syntax and a superfluous builtin there as well. I've fixed this in my version. I also used function instead of relation in the direct semantics. Also fixed in my version.) > Does this replace section 8.1? I suppose that it could. > Shouldn't swrlx:datarangeAtom include a swrlx:dObject rather than a > swrlx:iObject? yes, and owl:dataRange instead of owlx:description. I've made these fixes as well. > I'm not sure I understand exactly how to use the new URIreference in > ruleml:imp. It might be good to add it to Example 5.1-1. > I thought that swrlx:builtinAtom would have a swrlx:builtin attribute > (analogous to swrlx:property) rather than using URIreference. > Shouldn't swrlx:builtinAtom and swrlx:datarangeAtom (see above) now also be > parents of swrlx:dObject? I'll leave these to someone who knows how this should all tie together. I find it somewhat mystifying. > > Mike > > [1] http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/ peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/25/04 EST