Re: new versions of SWRL draft

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 03/25/04

  • Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "regrets for 30 March"
    From: "Mike Dean" <>
    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]

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/25/04 EST