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

Re: exchanging OWL through RIF

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:11:08 +0100
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
Cc: bparsia@isr.umd.edu, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF84C91E05.CD2A5EC2-ONC1257127.003AA939-C1257127.003D6F08@agfa.com>

>> >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. For the latter, translating into FOL would be useless, I 
believe.

Using a more expressive language to implement less expressive
ones is indeed doable and I have done some test cases written
in OWL+N3 and been running with prover9 and E theorem prover.
That works pretty well, but is not what I do when I can use
for instance SQL and Prolog engines or SPARQL and N3 engines.

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 4 March 2006 11:11:42 GMT

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