- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:56:24 +0200
- To: <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
I have code that does that - what was being asked for was yet another format (based on OWL abstract syntax) for which a very good advert is the work Guus circulated on WordNet. I don't find any of these ideal. Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Fabien Gandon > Sent: 02 April 2004 15:26 > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: [ALL] Human-friendly syntax for communicating OWL fragments > > > > Hi, > > Would it be impractical to consider having both syntaxes in the > documents issued by this working groups? > Something like in the test case document of OWL: > > _______________________________________ > | > | <owl:Class rdf:ID="A"> > | <first:ap> > | <owl:Class rdf:ID="B"/> > | </first:ap> > | </owl:Class> > | <owl:AnnotationProperty rdf:ID="ap"/> > |_______________________________________ > | > | first:A rdf:type owl:Class . > | first:B rdf:type owl:Class . > | first:A first:ap first:B . > | first:ap rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty . > |_______________________________________ > > > Fabien. > -- > "The best way to steal souls is to divide peoples." > ____________ > |__ _ |_ http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/personnel/Fabien.Gandon/ > | (_||_) INRIA Sophia Antipolis - ph# (33)(0)4 92 38 77 88 > >
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 09:05:51 UTC