Re: Small problem with Expression.owl

On Jun 23, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Daniel Elenius wrote:

>> 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.
>>
>
> Although it's not officially a standard (or "W3C Recommendation"), a 
> fair number of people already seem to be using it, creating tool 
> support for it, etc.

Of course. That's why I suggested using it in the first place :)

But it *is* more fluid. And of course we're not exactly using it as 
intended.

>  It may be that the need for something like SWRL was so great that 
> people don't care if it's officially a "standard" or not. Lots of 
> things become de-facto standards before they become official standards 
> (if ever).

Of course. Nothing I said suggests otherwise. But if you are tracking 
SWRL you have to be ready for change and flexibility and 
incompatibility in a way that you *shouldn't* be for OWL.

> Having said that, it's obviously more important to conform to OWL (DL).

It eludes me why it was necessary to say that, hence my not saying it.

> I was hoping we could do both.

We can! Put expressions back in XMLLiterals.

Seriously.

The other solution is to define an out of band procedure which involves 
stripping out all the expressions before processing by a dl reasoner 
(similar to what you were doing manually). But if you were doing that, 
you could do the same for the shadow list vocabulary dealing with swrl 
(i.e., just convert the shadow list to rdf lists before feeding it to 
your SWRL editor).

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 16:37:36 UTC