- From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 11:51:01 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 6 May 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Ian > > p.s. I believe that this is yet another example illustrating how > > crazy it is to try to write OWL in RDF syntax without tool support - > > even we (the "experts") can't get it right! > > I am finding having a syntax checker really handy - even with the OWL Full > tests where the syntax checker is technically useless, (the file is OWL Full > necessarily), asking it why it is not OWL DL is certainly interesting. I couldn't agree more. In this example, the differences between using <owl:Thing> and <owl:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing"/> are rather subtle (and was something I too got wrong in my original translations of the DL tests). Tools support isn't the end of the matter though, as our experience (with DAML+OIL) has been that different tool developers have different interpretations as to how to use the constructs. > This particular example was labelled OWL Full - if I had asked why I would > have a surprise. > > I am getting more taken with OWL DL as time goes on. <darthvader> Luuuuuke, join us on the dark side..... </darthvader> Cheers, Sean -- Sean Bechhofer seanb@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 06:54:46 UTC