- From: <nvdesai@ncsu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:46:20 -0400 (EDT)
- 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