W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2005

RE: RDF as a syntax for OWL (was Re: same-syntax extensions to RDF)

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:29:29 +0100
To: Peter.Crowther@melandra.com
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2795A4C1.9BA86780-ONC1256F80.004DB487-C1256F80.004F9AD1@agfa.com>

Yes, but we do OWL/RDF/XML<->RDF/N3 automatically (using
Jena2 or Cwm) and then just *add* explicit theories such as
e.g. the ones in http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/#theories

Indeed, the latter is still a matter of "selecting by human".
At this moment RDF/N3<->TSTP transcription is semiautomatic
and is why I will have to come back later when I have more
running code to sharply illustrate what I found feasable :)

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/




"Peter Crowther" <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>
Sent by: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org
05/01/2005 14:33

 
        To:     <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER)
        Subject:        RE: RDF as a syntax for OWL (was Re: same-syntax extensions to RDF)



> From: jos.deroo@agfa.com [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com] 
> Anyhow, what I did was simply rewriting the OWL/RDF/XML
> in RDF/N3 and then transcribe that in TSTP
[...]

In other words: What is being demonstrated is that a human has (possibly
successfully) performed a transformation task for one particular piece
of RDF/XML.  And, further, that human has chosen to go via an
intermediate representation (N3) before attempting a transcription task,
as (presumably) the original syntax is not appropriate for the TSTP
transcription?

                                 - Peter
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 14:30:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC