From: Wagner, G.R. ([email protected])
Date: 07/15/04
I don't understand why a rule label should be different from a URIref. After all, a rule label is nothing else as the name of a rule, and in the SW a rule should be considered a resource like a class or a property, so it should be identified with the help of a URIref, and it would be preferable to reuse "rdf:ID" as its identifier attribute name instead of the "ruleml:_rlab" element name. Please let's be economic with introducing new names. We don't need new identifier attribute names for each new SW language. We can simply reuse "rdf:ID" and "rdf:resource". Btw, I don't think it makes sense to consider a rule name an (OWL) individual. The rule is the individual, and its name is the name of this individual, but why should we consider it to be an indivual itself? -Gerd > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of David Z. > Hirtle > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 8:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: SWRL RuleML Suggestion > > > Hello Mike and all, > > As was discussed in the last JC telecon, the RuleML XSD > (http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/ruleml.xsd) accompanying the > current version of the SWRL proposal is not fully compatible with > RuleML (http://www.ruleml.org/0.86). Namely, rule labels in > the SWRL proposal require empty content with an href value: > > > <xsd:element name="_rlab"> > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:attribute name="href" type="ruleml:RuleName" > use="required" /> > </xsd:complexType> > </xsd:element> > > <xsd:simpleType name="RuleName"> > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:anyURI" /> > </xsd:simpleType> > > > or more abstractly (from Section 5): > > > <ruleml:_rlab > ruleml:href = xsd:anyURI (required) > > > Content: ( ) > </ruleml:_rlab> > > > This use of the href attribute is different from RuleML's > "webizing" use. > > In RuleML the _rlab element does not allow an href attribute, > but rather contains an ind(ividual). Allowing so-called "foreign" > individuals is still preferable to shifting them from element > content to > attribute value. > > For _rlab's, it would be desirable to use an OWL instance (Individual) > e.g. from http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/swrlx.xsd, > > <xsd:element name="Ontology"> > ... > <xsd:complexType> > ... > <!-- Instances --> > <xsd:element ref="owlx:Individual" /> > ... > </xsd:complexType> > ... > </xsd:element> > > together with webizing via the "name" attribute of OWL's Individual > (from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-xmlsyntax/#owls_Individual): > > <Individual > name = xsd:anyURI > > > Content: (Annotation*, (type | DataPropertyValue | > ObjectPropertyValue)* ) > </Individual> > > Using these defintions, we can now use rule labels as the > content of the > _rlab > element instead of as an href attribute value. The _rlab element > declaration > would simply be as follows in the proposal's ruleml.xsd: > > <xsd:element name="_rlab"> > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:sequence> > <xsd:element ref="owlx:Individual" /> > </xsd:sequence> > </xsd:complexType> > </xsd:element> > > > Thanks, > > David and Harold > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 07/15/04 EST