- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:44:32 -0500
- To: bparsia@isr.umd.edu
- Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > [snip] > >2. There are no FOL rule engines as far as I know. They currently exist on > > paper only. It is not at all certain that there will be. So, what is your > > target user group? > > > > --michael > > Does Hoolet count? (For swrl): > http://owl.man.ac.uk/hoolet/ > > We are currently working on extending Pellet to handle DL Safe rules and then > SWRL. It will be a "native" SWRL engine and respect the FOL semantics. Various > sorts of optimizations are planned. > > Cheers, > Bijan. My statement should be understood in the context of Ed's use case. He conjectured that there might be an FOL rule engine that *doesn't understand OWL* and therefore a translation is needed. SWRL is not such an FOL reasoner, because it builds directly on OWL. OWL doesn't need to be encoded in order to be used by SWRL. It is the need for this encoding that I claimed to be questionable. Now, the charter talks about FOL rule languages and there will be a need to devise a RIF encoding for something like SWRL. But I doubt that it will look like a translation into FOL (one that extends the usual translation from DL to FOL). --michael
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 19:54:46 UTC