W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > October 2004

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

From: <nvdesai@ncsu.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:46:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <2221.152.14.9.208.1097793980.squirrel@152.14.9.208>
To: www-rdf-rules@w3.org

> I remain puzzled as to how swrl.owl even plays into the Jena parsing
> situation.  It is not as if swrl.owl defines the semantics or even the
> syntax of SWRL.

[I use SWRLX to mean the OWL/XML syntax of the language i.e. swrlx.xsd and
SWRL to mean OWL/RDF syntax of the language i.e. swrl.owl. I also use SWRL
to mean the semantic web rule language.]

Peter,

I think one more note is worth the confusion :-). Maybe, I am not asking
an intellectual question.

I am not worried about whether SWRL or SWRLX defines the syntax or
semantics of SWRL. But one would take one of them as their starting point
for defining owl-rule ontologies. So, my concern is on the practice side
of the matter.

Root of the problem is that any development needs tool support (yes,
graphics are good). And all editing tools use Jena for parsing/spitting
purposes. And Jena is an RDF parser !!

swrl.owl allows me to use Protege, either instantiate or subClass SWRL
classes, and develop my ontologies and rules efficiently. Which is fine as
long as swrl.owl is not going to be deprecated and is going to be
maintained with the development of the rule language.

If I choose OWLX, I have to hand-write everything. But apparently the
spec. encourages me to use OWLX.

Converters are of no use if SWRLX is well developed while its SWRL
counterpart is not. They basically do not allow me to leverage goodies and
refinements of SWRLX as they will lose that in conversion.

For example, swrl.owl will allow any rdf:resource in argument1 and
argument2 of individualPropertyAtom, regardless of the domain and range of
the respectuve objectProperty/DataTypeProperty. I am not sure, but I
suspect this would not be the case with SWRLX.

If usability of SWRL is not a significant point of worry at this stage,
then there is no point in my question. If Jena supports OWLX in near
future (sounds very unlikely given their RDF centered model), and Protege
makes updates to use new Jena model, then also there is no problem.
Or else, if swrl.owl is refined, maintained, and given equal importance
(which is unlikely as you mentioned deprecation of RDF), then also there
is no problem.

SWRLX and OWLX are good but how would one use them if tools are not going
to support them ?

Excuse me for a lengthy post,

-Nirmit


> From: nvdesai@ncsu.edu
> Subject: Re: swrl.owl is OWL Full and Protege does not support%2
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 22:46:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:46:18 UTC