[Pellet-users] A few questions on OWL 1.1 support

[Evren Sirin]

On 1/23/07 6:04 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> Did everyone settle with owl:minInclusive etc instead of 
>>> xsd:minInclusive?
>>>   
>>>       
>> I'm not really happy with it but nobody else seems to care about this 
>> right now so I'm just using owl:minInclusive right now.
>>     
>
> Thanks for your responses, Evren.  I am glad you have factored out all 
> the OWL 1.1 URIs into the OWL_1_1 class.  Replacing this file in 
> principle allows anyone to switch to a different vocabulary.  
In principle yes, in practice no. I think there are some parts of the 
code that these all come from OWL namespace and just look at the local 
name. This wasn't an issue with OWL terms which are not supposed to 
change but would be a problem for OWL 1.1 extensions. It shouldn't be 
too hard to make the changes so everybody will use the same definitions. 
I'll put this in my todo list.
> I consider 
> moving to xsd:minInclusive and perhaps to some owlx:SelfRestriction for 
> our tool, unless I hear more on this topic from those who are writing 
> the specs.
>   
Well, considering there aren't too many tools that support OWL 1.1 
around, it would be bad if the couple of tools that support OWL 1.1 used 
different syntax. You could make the change to Pellet since you deploy 
it with your tool but one wouldn't be able to dump an OWL 1.1 file from 
Protege and load it to TopBraid Composer (or you would have to do some 
conversion on the fly which is not nice and the other direction would 
still be a problem). For this reason, my preference for now is just to 
stick with what it is out there.

Cheers,
Evren
> Holger
> _______________________________________________
> Pellet-users mailing list
> Pellet-users at lists.owldl.com
> http://lists.owldl.com/mailman/listinfo/pellet-users
> _______________________________________________
>
> Sponsored by Clark & Parsia, LLC http://clarkparsia.com/
>
>