- From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:27:34 -0700
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- CC: Daniel Elenius <elenius@csl.sri.com>, public-sws-ig@w3.org
Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Daniel Elenius wrote: > >> Bijan Parsia wrote: >> >>> On Jun 22, 2005, at 11:21 PM, Daniel Elenius wrote: >>> >>>> Now that SWRL-Conditions aren't literals anymore, the following, in the >>>> 1.2 Expression.owl, makes that file >>>> OWL Full (since we are "redefining rdf:nil"): >>> >>> >>> [snip[ >>> >>>> An easy solution would be to move the AlwaysTrue instance to a separate >>>> file, which would only be imported by OWL-S services that use SWRL. >>>> That >>>> way other services could still stay in OWL DL. Perhaps a little ugly to >>>> have a file with just one instance though. >>> >>> >>> >>> Another easy solution would be to reuse the shadow list vocabulary. >>> That's what it's there for. >>> >> The problem with that is that the nil instance in the shadow list >> vocab is not an AtomList (it's not even an rdf:List). > > > That's the point. > >> Ideally, SWRL would have used the shadow list vocab, but it doesn't... > > > But we're not really using SWLR, so what's the diff? Sure, we are using SWRL. > > Why not encourage swrl to use it too? Personally I wouldn't object to that, but I suspect from the point of view of the SWRL authors, it might be felt that tying in with standardly-defined terms like &rdf;#nil makes SWRL more meaningful. > > SWRL isn't a standard...OWL is. I prefer to conform to the latter. I'm not sure I see your point here, with respect to the current topic. How would SWRL be conforming to OWL by using the shadow list vocab instead of refering to &rdf;#nil? - Dave
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 15:27:55 UTC