W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Ontology numbers

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:13:20 +0100
Message-Id: <16611900-AFDE-443F-B87A-58309A75DB28@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: "Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@gmail.com>

On 26 Jun 2007, at 13:31, Adrian Walker wrote:

> Hi Bijan --
> You wrote...
>> ...I'm having trouble
>> finding examples and projects using LP or specifically F-Logic in the
>> way and at the scale we see for OWL.
> The IBL system [1] uses rules that are interpreted to extract a  
> highly declarative meaning [2].  There are online examples of  
> reasoning over OWL/RDF triples, and also over n-ary relations.  For  
> scalability the triples or other relations can be in a SQL database  
> [3,4] (and when the SPARQL spec is finalized and implemented  
> probably in SPARQL too) .
> HTH .

Nope. And you must have misunderstood me as not only have I've seen  
this spiel about a million times, nearly verbatim, but it is not  
remotely apropos.

If I read your oil example correctly (*again*) it's just a toy  
example. A few rules, then a database. And it's not even a real  
effort or a large effort or a collaborative effort. The rest of your  
public examples are similar, as I recall. So these are no help at all.

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 14:12:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC