- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:51:39 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Peter, Ian, In the SW Best Practices group Alan Rector and I have been working on a note on QCRs, with the intention of providing guidance for ontology engineers. The note is mainly based on the work-arounds and proposals we developed during the WebOnt discussions about this. The current draft [1] has been lying around for a year or so (there were some formatting updates, but nothing major) and we would like to finish this now. Patterns 1 & 2 in [1] are work-arounds for OWL as it is. I want to draw your attention to pattern 3, a "non-endorsed OWL extension", which actually comes from the WebOnt resolution on QCRs [2, end of the email]. I was looking at OWL 1.1 documents [3, 4] to see what kind of syntax you propose. I found the abstract syntax, but no mapping to RDF/XML triples. I have two questions: - Is there a proposal for a OWL 1.1 RDF/XML representation of QCRs? - What do you think of the proposed RDF/XML syntax in pattern 3 of [1]? Comments and/or proposals for alternatives would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Best, Guus [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/QCR/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0072.html [3] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/overview.html [4] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax.html -- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446 Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 12:52:13 UTC