- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:54:38 -0700
- To: "Sean Bechhofer" <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, "Jeremy Carroll (E-mail)" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
If this is true, then it covers OWL-DL and OWL-Lite, presumably. Jeremy: you said that there are problems with trying to do this with OWL-Full. Can you give a simple example that shows the problem? Also, I'm happy to accept the simple fact that different people do prefer different syntaxes for various reasons, ranging from what they are familiar with, to what particular purpose/context they are concerned with, to just a simple 'how their brain works' personal preference. Hopefuly we can agree then on a small number of syntaxes to use. One reader-friendly version for people shocked by too many angle brackets, and the RDF/XML one. There are lots of graphical possibilties, but lets not go there! MIke -----Original Message----- From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sean Bechhofer Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 6:30 AM To: Frank van Harmelen Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: [ALL] Human-friendly syntax for communicating OWL fragments Frank van Harmelen wrote: > PS: it would be a great service to the community if anybody wrote an > AS-to-RDF/XML convertor (Sean Bechhofer has already done the inverse > (and much harder) direction, at [3]) > [3] <http://phoebus.cs.man.ac.uk:9999/OWL/Validator> > Well, we've actually done the other way round too! But it was still a little tricky as it needed some firming up of the abstract syntax so we could put it through a parser generator. Details of the grammar we used are at [1]. If this is at all useful, I can add this functionality to the Validator... Sean [1] http://owl.man.ac.uk/2003/concrete/latest/ -- Sean Bechhofer seanb@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 19:02:27 UTC