[OWL] Annotations on subclass axioms etc. (fwd)

[Bernardo Cuenca Grau]

> > We could define an enhanced syntax for OWL that carried this
> > information,
> > outside of RDF. The enhanced syntax would project onto the standard
> > syntax.
> > With enough buy-in from tool builders this could then become the de-
> > facto
> > transfer syntax for OWL.  I think that this would get around the
> > problem,

 And I think it is the way to go. Besides, I am not sure how the
extensions we are planning to include in OWL 1.1. will behave in terms of
RDF compatibility anyway, and it is also unclear whether we should consume
our energies and time trying to find that out.


> > without making a complete break from RDF.  However, perhaps it is
> > time to make
> > the break, to pave the way for the break that will be needed in the
> > Rules
> > Interchange Format working group.
>
> Does this imply that SWRL will have to step outside RDF or has done so?

 SWRL does not have an RDF-compatible model theory at the moment.


> What about the RuleML folk.  Are they also layered over RDF?

 I don't think so

> Intending to break out? Not? ...
>
> >
> >> I had no idea I was opening a can of worms.
> >
> > Hmm.  After all the shouting about the problems with RDF, this is a
> > bit
> > surprising.
>
> That there were cans of worms I new well.  That this would open one
> of them
> I find surprising.  I thought it was RDF's ability to do "anything"
> and lack of constraints
>   that caused all the problems.  More fool I.
>
> Alan
>
> -----------------------
> Alan Rector
> Professor of Medical Informatics
> Department of Computer Science
> University of Manchester
> Manchester M13 9PL, UK
> TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6188/6149
> FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
> www.cs.man.ac.uk/mig
> www.clinical-esciences.org
> www.co-ode.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OWL mailing list
> OWL at lists.mindswap.org
> http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl
>