Re: Concrete Syntaxes

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

  • Next message: Sandro Hawke: "Re: notes from 11/11/03 JC telecon on Rules and preparing W3 Note" 
    > > 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.

I think the underlying issue is that one can re-use elements
from other DTDs/schemas/namespaces as self-contained
subtrees within an XML tree (as we would for OWL class
definitions embedded within rules), but not for modified
interior elements.

Note that such reuse is fine in RDF, because one could
define, for example, swrl:ClassAtom as a subclass of
ruleml:Atom.  Such extensibility is one of the advantages of
RDF.

One could define another SWRL-specific RuleML
namespace and split the definitions between swrl: and
ruleml:, but that seems to overly-burden the user just to
achieve ancestral symmetry.

Another alternative is to always use a single swrl:
namespace, but I had been hoping to re-use the current owlx:
elements without having to specifically copy them.

I realize that I'm correlating namespaces with DTDs/Schemas,
etc. here, but that's because I feel it's essential that the
namespace URI be resolvable to a document that tools can use
to check content.

	Mike

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