- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:46:16 -0500
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
This thread started on public-sws-ig, but probably should move to
www-rdf-rules.
I include a pointer to Drew's original post:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2004Jan/0024.html
I have a question about the use of reification. I notice that what I
take to be the latest SWRL forgoes the reification sytnax altogether:
http://www.daml.org/2003/11/swrl/rdfsyntax.html
For example:
<swrl:classAtom>
<swrl:classPredicate rdf:resource="&ulan;Artist"/>
<swrl:argument1 rdf:resource="#x" />
</swrl:classAtom>
Whereas DRS has something like:
<drs:Atomic formula>
<rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x"/>
<rdf:predicate rdf:resource="&rdf;type"/>
<rdf:object rdf:resource="&ulan;Artist"/>
</drs:Atomic formula>
I'm not quibbling about having special support for classAtom, but about
reusing the reification vocabulary at all. It leads to this bit of
hair:
"""If a predicate has arity > 2, its rdf:object slot is Ūlled by a a
term sequence,
represented as an OWL list of all arguments after the Ūrst."""
So sometimes the rdf:object is the argument and sometimes it's a
pointer to the argument list. Why not just make up your own properties
(liek swrl:argument1)? (Better, make the value of swrl:argument have
structure like swrl:position, swrl:name, swrl:defaultValue :)) Or heck,
just add as many rdf:objects as you'd like :)
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 21:46:20 UTC