W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2006

Re: RIF: minutes telecon 24 Jan 2006

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:22:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20060127.112208.100408447.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bry@ifi.lmu.de
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org

From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Subject: RIF: minutes telecon 24 Jan 2006
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:08:37 +0100


> 4. OWL & RDF Compatibility


> Harold Boley: in rule bodies queries from different languages, including
> SPARQL, can be called as external predicates; eg, SWRL calls OWL predicates
> from RuleML

Umm, SWRL is a rule langauge.  One of its syntaxes is based on part of the
RuleML syntax.  So, it is much more accurate to just say

	SWRL calls OWL predicates

However even this does not accurately portray the true situation.  SWRL is
based on OWL.  The atoms in SWRL rules can directly involve OWL descriptions
(including classes) or OWL properties.

SWRL does, indeed, have the ability to utilize certain built-in predicates, but
these predicates are (supposed to be) platonic predicates like "less than".

> Jos De Bruijn: SWRL allows queries in rules?
> Harold Boley: SPARQL templates could be represented as (interpreted)
> functions defined via rules having an equation in the head.

I'm not sure that this is completely possible.  It might be possible to admit
SPARQL BGP queries into SWRL atoms (at least in the body of rules) without too
much modification of the SWRL semantics.  However, a complete implementation of
such a combination could not be done by simply calling a SPARQL processor
outside of a rule engine implementing SWRL - instead an integrated engine would
have to be designed.  (This is not to say that the integrated engine might not
be able to incorporate a lightly-modified SPARQL processor, however.)


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 16:22:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:36 UTC