W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: POWDER and OWL

From: <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:15:40 -0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <26408.212.183.134.209.1195812940.squirrel@Smartmail.kcom.com>
To: public-powderwg@w3.org

Just two quick lines...

[snip]
>> 3. In tools that support them, rule languages like N3 Rules and SWRL CAN
>> be used to process the data. For example, one could express a rule in
>> one or other of these languages that said something like "If the
>> resource is available from example.org and the statement that it is a
>> subset of mobileOK was made by an entity satisfying condition X and
>> within a time frame Y, THEN include the hyperlink in the page." (I'd
>> love to see such a rule!)
>
> What I can say is that a DR can be expressed by using a rule language,
> such as N3. Your rule is something different from a DR (actually, it
> seems a rule aiming at processing a DR): which is its purpose?
>

Basically I see rules as a way to interpret DRs, rather than a way to
express them.

[snip]
>
> I agree. However, as far as points B and C are concerned, I think it is
> better to include them in the primer (maybe we can have a summary in the
> DR doc, as in its current version). The fact that rule languages,
> SPARQL, etc. can be used to process DRs is an implementation issue, so,
> according to me, the DR and grouping docs are not the right places were
> to discuss them.

I agree!

Phil.
Received on Friday, 23 November 2007 10:15:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:12 GMT