- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:36:30 -0500 (EST)
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Subject: Re: RDF as a syntax for OWL (was Re: same-syntax extensions to RDF)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:22:06 +0100
> Hi, Peter
>
> I will have to come back later when I have more running
> code to sharply illustrate what I found feasable.
>
> The example I gave was from
> http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out#table_6_Extra
> Credit DL
> where all implementations at that moment gave undecided.
> (I still wanted to check that case as I had some doubts :))
>
> Anyhow, what I did was simply rewriting the OWL/RDF/XML
> in RDF/N3 and then transcribe that in TSTP
Do you mean rewriting manually? If so, then what relevance does this have
to the difficulty of parsing OWL written in RDF XML?
> and run it as
> eprover -l4 --tstp-in inconsistent502.tstp | epclextract --tstp-out
> The reverse transcribing of the TSTP proof is what I'm
> interested in to see as (swebized) RDF/N3 to connect
> it with other pieces of RDF/N3, in which for instance
> {} values are used instead of URI reference to lemmas.
>
>
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 13:36:39 UTC