You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Dear all, the reasoners for compliance checking expect the ontologies in owl format, which is related to Turtle and RDF but different. It would be helpful to add the OWL serialization to the others already present in the repository.
Functionally, all supported syntax would do (Manchester, functional, XML), but Manchester is the closest to RDF and Turtle, so it may be a preferred choice, as it may look more familiar to RDF and Turtle users.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Dear all, the reasoners for compliance checking expect the ontologies in owl format, which is related to Turtle and RDF but different. It would be helpful to add the OWL serialization to the others already present in the repository.
Functionally, all supported syntax would do (Manchester, functional, XML), but Manchester is the closest to RDF and Turtle, so it may be a preferred choice, as it may look more familiar to RDF and Turtle users.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: