- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:29:39 -0500
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 3, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Michael Kifer wrote: >>> 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). >> >> Prolly not. >> >> Bottom line is that there *are* (a few, experimental) systems that >> have >> proceeded via a translation of OWL DL to FOL, with surprisingly good >> results. >> (KAON2 also works this way, since it hits disjunctive datalog via the >> FOL >> translation...however, that's far far far from a transliterate and go >> approach.) > > It is one thing to translate in order to implement and another in > order to > exchange. Really? Ok. (Though, direct translitertions aren't that hard to deal with. They do lose some handy structure, but you can recover a fair bit.) > For the latter, translating into FOL would be useless, I believe. I certainly don't see the appeal. Though, with something like Hoolet, they *are* using an interchange format (TPTP) to communicate with the FOL reasoners. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 21:58:56 UTC