- From: <nvdesai@ncsu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:11:10 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
As this thread points out in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2004Aug/0003.html swrl.owl is OWL Full because of rdf:Property type of argument2. Maybe this has been pointed out earlier, but another (and probably more significant) problem is the definition of AtomList as a subClassOf rdf:List. And OWL normative spec. says clearly that rdf:List is not in OWL DL. What are the plans of the JC on this ? Also, the SWRL spec. seems to prefer the OWL XML presentation syntax over OWL RDF syntax. A problem for developers and users is that current ontology editing tools e.g. Protege *do not* work with XML syntax (and probably they will never). So for any serious use/development, RDF syntax is a requirement. Hence, swrl.owl is important. What are the plans of JC on this issue ? is/will RDF syntax be deprecated ? Thanks, -- Nirmit Desai Graduate Student Department of Computer Science NC State University
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 20:13:02 UTC