W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:53:18 +0200
Message-Id: <E24BF821-D44D-11D8-B727-000A9575BDDE@inf.unibz.it>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 8 Jun 2004, at 22:17, Jim Hendler wrote:
>  1 - mention of SWRL is problematic -- RDFS and OWL are 
> Recommendations that have gone through the full W3C process at great 
> cost to participants and to the W3C.  SWRL is just a note w/no WG 
> status.   While I like SWRL, and my research group uses it, there's a 
> bunch of other systems out there at the same level of informality, and 
> it isn't fair for us to mention one and not the others (some of which 
> are notes or referenced in notes).   

I agree. From my survey [1] SWRL is only a little piece of a much 
larger puzzle.

> Also, adding SWRL confuses rule processing with other kinds of 
> inferencing, and it is not clear to me this is an objective of this WG 
> (in fact, I would point out that it is probably out of scope given 
> section 2.2 of the  charter [1])

I tend to agree: as far as I understand the charter, no "reasoning" 
should be involved here, only the simple matching (see my other email). 
On the other hand, it is important that the query language chosen here 
will be compatible with the upper layers (such as SWRL and OWL) in 
terms of its (logic-based) semantics.

cheers
--e.

Enrico Franconi                  - franconi@inf.unibz.it
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano - http://www.inf.unibz.it/~franconi/
Faculty of Computer Science      - Phone: (+39) 0471-016-120
I-39100 Bozen-Bolzano BZ, Italy  - Fax:   (+39) 0471-016-129
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 17:54:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT