[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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
|
