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 22:45:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1468.152.14.9.208.1097808343.squirrel@152.14.9.208>
To: www-rdf-rules@w3.org

Peter,

I am not critical of the role swrl.owl plays today. Protege does not
depend on swrl.owl and it is able to handle it because its just another
OWL ontology for it.

> Well, yes, to some extent at least.  RDF is a very poor language for
> expressing syntax - there are just too many parts of the SWRL syntax that
> don't naturally fit.

That is the piece of information I was looking for. I was suggesting that
swrl.owl be given priority or atleast equal importance because RDF based
ontologies have a great tool support. But I was unaware of the fact that
RDF might not be a good language to define syntaxes. Thanks for
enlightening me :)

So, as Bijan pointed out, swrl.owl's role might be limited for the
transition period while we wait for tools like SWOOP to emerge with OWLX
support.

cheers,

-Nirmit

> From: nvdesai@ncsu.edu
> Subject: Re: swrl.owl is OWL Full and Protege does not support OWL/XML
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:46:20 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> > 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.
>
> I still don't see why the presence/absence/form of swrl.owl should affect
> a
> tool (like Protege) that can process SWRL.  Again, it is not like swrl.owl
> defines the syntax of SWRL, so I don't see why/how Protege could possibly
> depend on it.
>
>> If I choose OWLX, I have to hand-write everything. But apparently the
>> spec. encourages me to use OWLX.
>
> Well, yes, to some extent at least.  RDF is a very poor language for
> expressing syntax - there are just too many parts of the SWRL syntax that
> don't naturally fit.
>
>> 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.
>
> Again, swrl.owl has no normative impact.
>
>> 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
>
> I remain puzzled as to what role you expect swrl.owl to play here.  Note
> that swrl.owl is described in http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/03/ as
> [an] "OWL ontology partially describing the RDF Concrete Syntax of SWRL".
> 	           ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 02:45:47 UTC

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