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

Re: exchanging OWL through RIF

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:52:24 -0500
To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <12923.1141404744@kiferserv.kiferhome.com>

#3 is what I called in my talk "integration" with OWL.
#2 is what I called "interoperation".
Both should be in Phase 1, but #2 is easier and has wider applicability.

#1 is practically useless, if we are talking about some standard proposal.
Some users might be able to get some kick out of it but:
1. They will do better with option #2; and
2. As Uli said, writing #1-style translators shouldn't be RIF's job.


> Dear All,
> Obviously, the following usages can be expected, because some need them:
> 1. translating OWL formulas/specifications in a RIF.
> 2. querying OWL ontologies in (the antecedent of) a RIF rule - what was
> refered to as "theory reasoning" two days ago.
> 3. using RIDF rules for extending/complementing OWL specifications.
> In my opinion, we should try to keep all these usages possible. 1 and 2
> seem to me much easier than 3 and therefore preferable as Phase 1 goals.
> (My understanding of Uli's mail is that she would favour 3 for Phase 1).
> Making 1 possible seems to me to be essential, because otherwise, as Ed
> (Barkmeyer) pointed out, the providers of rule software would not get
> the help from a RIF theyt need coping with OWL. 
> Regards,
> François
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 16:52:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:27 GMT