Re: Next few weeks in RIF

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Dave Reynolds <
dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> The currently generated versions don't have rule IRI metadata in them.
> Don't know if it is worth doing an update to include that before you put up
> the XML. Stella, does the conversion tool like the (* <#name> *) relative
> IRI syntax for rule identification?
>
>
>
Jacc isn't currently configured to support the full annotation syntax. I
will try to do that this week and regenerate the xml with the annotations
included. I think it would be useful to have them in to help with matching
up a rule in the ps with the xml.

Stella




On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Dave Reynolds <
dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 08/03/2010 17:30, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
>> Done but it makes for a really big document (about 5x previous version).
>>> I wonder if it would be better to put them at a known web location and
>>> reference that from the document.
>>>
>>> Sandro, what's the right process here?
>>>
>>
>> Probably for me just to put it at some random W3C URL, like
>>     http://www.w3.org/2010/03/owlrl.rif
>> or
>>     http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/owlrl.rif
>>
>> and think provide that URL in the document.
>>
>
> Works for me, thanks. If you can do that and let me know the location then
> I'll delete the appendix again and put a reference in the doc.
>
> Currently there are three XML documents (simple, datatype and list rules)
> because that's how they are presented in the note; but they are easy to
> combine into a single document if that's better.
>
> The currently generated versions don't have rule IRI metadata in them.
> Don't know if it is worth doing an update to include that before you put up
> the XML. Stella, does the conversion tool like the (* <#name> *) relative
> IRI syntax for rule identification?
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>