- From: Benedicto Rodriguez <br205r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:12:28 +0100
- To: "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
- Cc: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Ibach, Brandon L" <brandon.l.ibach@lmco.com>
Brandon, Ian, Thanks a lot for your responses. I'm happy to report that your suggestions work and parse great both in N3 and RDF/XML *syntax* :) I'd like to point out that this is all part of a research task about (in a nutshell) comparing different ontology modeling options to model conceptual overlap in domain concepts. I am using the applicable approaches and variations presented in the SWBPD WG docs as a starting point. > From: Ian Horrocks [mailto:horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk] > Sent: 17 October 2007 16:28 > > I can > warmly recommend the new 4.x version of Protege [1] (make sure you > get 4.x -- it has been completely re-engineered to be OWL specific, > and is orders of magnitude faster and slicker than the 3.x versions). I have also installed the 4.x version (didn't try before because it is an alpha version) and the first impression after opening some of the OWL ontologies I am using it is definitely very positive. > On 17 Oct 2007, at 02:29, Ibach, Brandon L wrote: > > > > Note, also, that it is somewhat imprecise to refer to the RDF/XML > > as an > > "OWL implementation" in contrast to the N3 version. Both N3 and > > RDF/XML > > are valid syntaxes for an OWL ontology, as they are both valid > > syntaxes > > for RDF, upon which OWL is built. Note made :) I think that was my traditional C, C++, Java software developer mindset drawing imprecise analogies :) Thanks again, Bene Postgraduate Student | Intelligence, Agents and Multimedia Group | School of Electronics and Computer Science | University of Southampton | Southampton SO17 1BJ | United Kingdom | Phone: +44 23 8059 3122 | Email: bene@soton.ac.uk
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 16:19:06 UTC