Re: Small problem with Expression.owl

On Jun 23, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Daniel Elenius wrote:

> 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.

But we can only do that if we try in the first place :)

I think it's safer to say, "before processing with a SWRL processor, 
run this script" than "before processing with an OWL DL processor run 
this script". And that is precisely the difference.

>  Regarding the use of shadow-list vocab for SWRL, I don't think either 
> is the case.

I think b is the case. In either case you have to do *something*. I'd 
rather do it on the SWRL side. But whatever.

[snip]
>> We can! Put expressions back in XMLLiterals.
>
> I don't want to repeat that whole discussion. It's in the archives :)

Just pointing out that it does exactly what you want.

> What we currently have allows people to stay in OWL DL if they don't 
> use SWRL as an expression language,

Yep.

> 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).

That seems irrelevant. But if it encourages moving away from SWRL, yay.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 16:56:09 UTC