Re: suggested edits on SWRL-FOL document (I think they're high-priority)

From: Sandro Hawke (
Date: 12/21/04

  • Next message: Benjamin Grosof: "small edit Re: SWRL FOL submission"
    Speaking for SWRL-FOL, am I remembering correctly that it was decided
    to not even have a "broken" RDF version of the syntax?   Is there some
    text which explains that decision to the community which was reported
    as happily implementing the broken one in SWRL 0.6?
    (Of course this connects to a discussion Peter and I are having on
         -- sandro

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 12/21/04 EST