Re: Small problem with Expression.owl

Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 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.
>
But we can only take advantage of its fluidity if a) we can convince the 
SWRL authors to make any changes we need to it, or b) we can use it in 
"non-standard" ways without breaking compatibility with other tools and 
users of SWRL. Regarding the use of shadow-list vocab for SWRL, I don't 
think either is the case.

>>  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.
>
Yep.

>
> We can! Put expressions back in XMLLiterals.

I don't want to repeat that whole discussion. It's in the archives :)

What we currently have allows people to stay in OWL DL if they don't use 
SWRL as an expression language, with the exception of this tiny rdf:nil 
issue. SPARQL expressions are still quoted for example (they're not in 
RDF so they have to be).


Cheers,
Daniel

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 16:46:48 UTC