- From: Wagner, G.R. <G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 16:28:24 +0200
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
> Sandro Hawke writes: > In the team comment on SWRL [1] (which is the voice of > the W3C staff, NOT the voice of W3C [ie the W3C member or > "Director"]), I wrote: > > SWRL connects with RDF in two ways. The crucial connections is > that RDF graphs can be directly expressed in SWRL (using only > the obvious syntactic transformation) and they have exactly the > same meaning. Are you sure that this is the case? It would require to assume OWL-Full, which doesn't seem to be very popular among OWLers. Just one issue is the question if a class has a purely extensional semantics, as in OWL-DL, or a kind of "intensional" semantics (allowing for two classes to be different although they have the same extension), as in RDF and OWL-Full (and UML!). This is a very fundamental issue, which does not depend on the possibility of reification. -Gerd
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 10:28:27 UTC