Re: Small problem with Expression.owl

On Jun 23, 2005, at 11:27 AM, David Martin wrote:
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
[snip]
>> But we're not really using SWLR, so what's the diff?
>
> Sure, we are using SWRL.

Not really. AFAIK, we aren't using any SWRL rules and we aren't using 
the SWRL semantics *per se*. We're ripping off some of the 
syntax...which is perhaps the most fluid bit.

>> 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.

My belief is that the SWRL authors didn't care about the RDF syntax.

I expect that they would want the use of List to be "compiled out" the 
way it is in OWL DL now. But then OWL-S should point this out and 
encourage the *deletion* of all the swrl stuff before processing with 
an OWL reasoner.

(Note, this is exactly a key reason I pushed for Literal based quoting 
in the first place.)

>> 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?

Well,it will be OWL Full, so that's conforming in that sense. If we 
want it to be OWL DL, we can't just say, 'Treat this extra stuff as 
like the use of rdf:list in owl dl syntax'.

My point was that I don't view the SWRL syntax as being as worthy of 
following to the letter, since it's just a note. There's more fluidity.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 15:46:04 UTC