Re: Concrete Syntaxes

From: Mike Dean ([email protected])
Date: 11/12/03

Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: notes from 11/11/03 JC telecon on Rules and preparing W3 Note"

Previous message: Harold Boley: "Re: Concrete Syntaxes"
In reply to: Harold Boley: "Re: Concrete Syntaxes"
Next in thread: Mike Dean: "Re: Concrete Syntaxes"
Reply: Mike Dean: "Re: Concrete Syntaxes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> The XML Concrete Syntax is a combination of the OWL Web
> Ontology Language XML Presentation Syntax with
> the RuleML XML syntax.  This has several advantages:

That's also fine with me.

> I then propose to also keep our previous clear indication
> for the RuleML namespace. Such multiple namespaces made the
> OWL RuleML combination immediately possible: ruleml:imp, etc.

The problem is that none of the ruleml: DTDs or XML Schemas
know to expect classAtom, individualPropertyAtom, etc. as
subelements - only swrl: will know about these.  This is
somewhat analogous to swrlx:Ontology extending owlx:Ontology.

> Well, swrlx:Ontology is an extension of both owlx:Ontology
> and ruleml:rulebase.

Yes.

> I remember we wanted to call this swrlr: rather than swrl:
> (like it was owlr: rather than owl: since neither XML nor
> RDF is the 'default').

OWL uses owl: for its RDF namespace, not owlr:.  Sandro
registered the corresponding swrl: and swrlx:.

	Mike

Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: notes from 11/11/03 JC telecon on Rules and preparing W3 Note"
Previous message: Harold Boley: "Re: Concrete Syntaxes"
In reply to: Harold Boley: "Re: Concrete Syntaxes"
Next in thread: Mike Dean: "Re: Concrete Syntaxes"
Reply: Mike Dean: "Re: Concrete Syntaxes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/12/03 EST