However, I'd point out, in the last document, where they describe a
mapping of OWL 1.1 to RDF, they make the following caveat:
Not every OWL 1.1 ontology can be serialized in RDF. In particular,
ontologies using the following features of OWL 1.1 cannot be serialized:
1. punning and
As I expected, the experts are listening. :-)
Many thanks, Holger. That's extremely important to know.
I will dig into the thread for more detail. One main concern would
be whether that was just a token gesture to stay compatible for now,
as opposed to a commitment to remain compatible,
actually, we're trying to move the discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
there's a thread there that expresses some of my concerns about
moving away from the OWL syntax - given that the primary tools out
there right now still assume the OWL is integrated with the RDF
graph...
At 2:52 PM -0500
Many thanks, Jim.
I saw posts by you and others - as well as links to more detailed -
and very recent - discussions.
These are all very helpful.
I was particularly interested in the proposal you, Ora Lassilla, and
others have worked on to absorb much of the OWL Lite constructs
into
Dear Jim,
Many thanks.
This is all wonderful the hear.
If the person who's lab is responsible for developing and supporting
one of the most widely used DIG reasoners says these things are not
mutually exclusive in any way, I've got much more confidence that
all will be OK. :-)
Does
