- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:41:41 +0000
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: Benjamin Grosof <BenjaminG@vulcan.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 17 Jan 2012, at 12:36, Michael Schneider wrote: > Hi Benjamin! > > Just a clarification: > > Am 17.01.2012 01:29, schrieb Benjamin Grosof: > >> The mapping from OWL to SILK is designed mainly in >> terms of FOL and the best way to implement it is via FOL if not directly >> as a visitor on the OWL 2 API or something similar. > > When Bijan proposes to use an OWL API Visitor (and that's what I am doing myself), he probably means that this is a rather controlled approach to get from the different serialization formats of OWL to a FOL representation: Michael clarifies me admirably. If you are trying to get to SILK and you do no special analysis at the FOL level, then going directly to SILK via a visitor would be reasonable. If you massage at the FOL level (and have multiple FOL or other input formats) then going from OWL to your FOL object model is the right thing. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 12:42:09 UTC