- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:16:18 -0500
- To: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
- Cc: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Quick response. On Mar 31, 2004, at 2:54 AM, David Martin wrote: [snip] > <process:hasEffect> > <???:Formula> > <???:inLanguage rdf:datatype= > "&xsd;anyURI">...swrl...</???:inLanguage> I wouldn't use a literal here. The problems that faced us with parameterTypes don't apply. I expect swrl et al to have uris and could be made to be of type, say, LogicFormalism. > <???:conjuncts rdf:parseType="Collection"> > <swrl:datavaluedPropertyAtom> > <swrl:propertyPredicate rdf:resource="&arithmetic;sum"/> > <swrl:argument1> > <arithmetic:Pair> > <first rdf:resource="#Add_In1"> > <second rdf:resource="#Add_In2"> > </arithmetic:Pair> > </swrl:argument1> > <swrl:argument2 rdf:resource="#Add_Out"/> > </swrl:datavaluedPropertyAtom> > </???:conjuncts> > </???:Formula> > </process:hasEffect> > </process:AtomicProcess> > > (1) Are we happy with having a Formula class, with properties > "inLanguage" and "conjuncts"? If so, is it defined in DRS' namespace, > or where? Should a value of inLanguage be a URI? > > (2) Does the formula content need to be a literal, as we have > discussed? If so, how is that done? With parsetype=Literal? But > then I'm not clear about where (on what property) to put that. On some property wrapping ???:conjuncts. (well, conjuncts would need a parent node then). Hmm. That makes it a touch less appealing. The problem is that *our* "formula" really is a wrapper for other people's "formual" with extra metadata. So a bit of repetition seems very hard to avoid. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 09:16:39 UTC