Re: W3C RIF [Use Case] ETRI-UC1: Filling the holes of OWL ontology --> ???

Weren't we going to invent a standard web rule language, which extends or
complements OWL, like SWRL? ;-)

Looks like I'm not keeping up well with what's happening in this WG.
I think I'll have to dig more into the WG charter and the scribes of the
first f2f meeting...

As for the use case: web ontologies are meant for interchanging over the
web, so any rules complementing OWL ontologies should also be interchanged.
I think this is the most basic rules interchange scenario.

Regards,
Minsu


On 2005.12.13 1:57 AM, "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> My apologies for the dumb question, but what is the rule interchange aspect of
> this use case? What rule language is used in inference from OWL expressions,
> and what would this be interchanged with?
> 
> As described, the use case seems to be talking about OWL interchange
> extensions, and inventing some (additional) semantic web rule language. That
> sounds interesting, but is surely a separate topic from interchange. The use
> case I see here is the need for future extensibility to handle such rule
> languages...
> 
> 
> Paul Vincent
> Fair Isaac Blaze Advisor --- Business Rule Management
> OMG Standards for Business Rules, PRR & BPMI
> mobile: +44 (0)781 493 7229 ... office: +44 (0)20 7871 7229 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Minsu Jang
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:57 AM
> To: W3C RIF WG
> Subject: [Use Case] ETRI-UC1: Filling the holes of OWL ontology
> 
> 
> This use case is too obvious that it might not be obvious to cast it as a
> use case, but I'll try.
> 
> ** ETRI-UC1: Filling the holes of OWL
> 
> When building ontologies using OWL, we usually come up with such relations
> or classes that are difficult or impossible to express in OWL, which creates
> vocabulary holes in the ontologies. The most representative hole is the set
> of relations that can be defined by chained properties[1][2]. For example,
> with OWL alone, you cannot describe "uncle" relation, which is the
> composition of "father" and "brother" relation, into the family ontology.
> With rules, it's trivial to describe the relations defined by chained
> properties. As such, RIF will be an essential semantic web language that
> complements and extends OWL.
> 
> [1] OWL Web Ontology Language Use Cases and Requirements, W3C Recommendation
> 10 Feb 2004
> [2] Benjamin N. Grosof, Ian Horrocks, Raphael Volz, and Stefan Decker.
> Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic.
> In Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003),
> pages 48-57. ACM, 2003.
> 
> Regards,
> Minsu
> 
> ----------
> Minsu Jang
> Senior Researcher
> Intelligent Robot Research Division
> Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute
> Phone: +82-42-860-1250    Fax: +82-42-860-6790
> ** Bossam Rule Engine: http://mknows.etri.re.kr/bossam/ **
> 
> 
> 
> 

----------
Minsu Jang
Senior Researcher
Intelligent Robot Research Division
Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute
Phone: +82-42-860-1250    Fax: +82-42-860-6790
** Bossam Rule Engine: http://mknows.etri.re.kr/bossam/ **

Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 01:55:50 UTC