Re: Small problem with Expression.owl

Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 
> On Jun 22, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Daniel Elenius wrote:
> 
>> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 22, 2005, at 11:21 PM, Daniel Elenius wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now that SWRL-Conditions aren't literals anymore, the following, in the
>>>> 1.2 Expression.owl, makes that file
>>>> OWL Full (since we are "redefining rdf:nil"):
>>>
>>>
>>> [snip[
>>>
>>>> An easy solution would be to move the AlwaysTrue instance to a separate
>>>> file, which would only be imported by OWL-S services that use SWRL. 
>>>> That
>>>> way other services could still stay in OWL DL. Perhaps a little ugly to
>>>> have a file with just one instance though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another easy solution would be to reuse the shadow list vocabulary. 
>>> That's what it's there for.
>>>
>> The problem with that is that the nil instance in the shadow list 
>> vocab is not an AtomList (it's not even an rdf:List).
> 
> 
> That's the point.
> 
>> Ideally, SWRL would have used the shadow list vocab, but it doesn't...
> 
> 
> But we're not really using SWLR, so what's the diff?

Sure, we are using SWRL.

> 
> Why not encourage swrl to use it too?

Personally I wouldn't object to that, but I suspect from the point of view of the 
SWRL authors, it might be felt that tying in with standardly-defined terms like 
&rdf;#nil makes SWRL more meaningful.

> 
> SWRL isn't a standard...OWL is. I prefer to conform to the latter.

I'm not sure I see your point here, with respect to the current topic.  How would 
SWRL be conforming to OWL by using the shadow list vocab instead of refering to 
&rdf;#nil?

- Dave

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 15:27:55 UTC