Re: exchanging OWL through RIF

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.