[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: About OWL syntax

• To: Didier PH Martin <martind@n...>
• Subject: Re: About OWL syntax
• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:30:48 -0400
• Cc: "'Thomas B. Passin'" <tpassin@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <001401c38da1$b6408a80$c801a8c0@DIDIERHOME>
• References: <001401c38da1$b6408a80$c801a8c0@DIDIERHOME>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2

Didier PH Martin wrote:

>Does it mean that I can serialize a valid OWL statement as below?
>owl:Class rdf:ID="ConsumableThing">
>   <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="madeFromFruit">
>      <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Fruit" /> 
>   </owl:ObjectProperty>
>   .... other property definition ....
> </owl:class>
>
>Would that statement still a valid OWL document as specified in the
>recommendation? If yes, this could be suggested as a good practice.
>  
>
Unfortunately not. You could certainly look at the OWL _Abstract Syntax_ 
and decide that a better XML encoding might be:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="ConsumableThing">
    <owlx:hasLocalProperty owlx:id="madeFromFruit">
          <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Fruit" />
    </owlx:hasLocalProperty>
</owl:Class>

This was the specific reason that the WG decided to allow for the 
possibility of different _Presentation Syntaxes_ while the OWL _Transfer 
Syntax_ is specified to be RDF/XML. Indeed the OWL XML Presentation 
Syntax was defined for just this reason. Note that another such 
presentation syntax for OWL is *UML* (which captures a subset of OWL).

Jonathan

• References:
  • RE: About OWL syntax
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The Battle for Web Services
• Next by Date: Re: The Battle for Web Services
• Previous by thread: RE: About OWL syntax
• Next by thread: Re: About OWL syntax
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread