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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:51:20 -0700
Message-Id: <548AAC06-1E44-11D9-BAC3-000D93C1F7A6@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
To: nvdesai@ncsu.edu

On Oct 14, 2004, at 3:46 PM, nvdesai@ncsu.edu wrote:

>> 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.

> 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 !!

Several don't. Including ours, Swoop:	

> 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.

Of course it's going to be deprecated, assuming any further work 
happens. If it hits a standards body, they'll almost surely change all 
sorts of things about it.

Using SWRL is definitely risky, or, at least, more risky than using 
something already standardized.

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

Write one! :)

I hope to have both editing (in Swoop) and reasoning (in Pellet) 
support for a decidable subset of SWRL before the end of the year. We 
might even have something hacky (er..hackier) in the next couple of 

Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 00:51:26 UTC

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