Re: swrl.owl is OWL Full and Protege does not support OWL/XML

nvdesai@ncsu.edu wrote:
> 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 ?

I should make it clear that I am expressing my personal opinion here and not 
that of the JC.

So, speaking for myself, I don't consider swrl.owl to be of any great 
utility/significance so I am not to worried about these problems.


> 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 ?

I think you will find that it is pretty trivial to get editors such as Protege 
to spit out more or less any syntax you like at the back end, and importation of 
different syntaxes is also relatively easy (even if RDF based syntaxes are more 
  than averagely challenging in this regard). At the "front end" they don't work 
with directly with syntax at all, but provide a graphical/frame based view of 
the ontology. It is pretty easy to see how this could be extended to deal with 
Horn rules.

Ian


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Nirmit Desai
> Graduate Student
> Department of Computer Science
> NC State University
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 08:52:07 UTC