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

Re: exchanging OWL through RIF

From: Uli Sattler <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:44:21 +0000
Message-Id: <5519CC50-5DF0-4C6D-A3CF-AD9C5490177B@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

On 7 Mar 2006, at 14:58, Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:

>
> Uli Sattler wrote:
>> in my understanding, for OWL, we will need (as for any other  
>> "formalism"
>> we might want to consider) a translator that takes some OWL and maps
>> it into RIF. It is, however, not the job of RIF to provide this   
>> translator.
>
> Hear! Hear!
>

thanks for the polite tone

> However, it is our job (per the charter) to discuss the mapping and  
> identify what can be mapped from OWL to RIF and what cannot:

As I said in the part you cut off, there can be different such  
mappings, and therefor different such translators -- and I made a  
clear distinction between the mappings and their implementations  
(a.k.a. translators), and only stated that the RIF as a *formalism*  
will not provide the translators. I did *not* say (I guess this is  
what you understood) that it is not the WG's job to demonstrate some  
such translators.

> <<This document [the REC on using le RIF in combination with OWL]  
> must clearly state which features of OWL can be mapped to (or  
> otherwise interoperate with) Phase 1 rules and which cannot, and  
> software using this mapping must be demonstrated during  
> interoperability testing. The document may also discuss rule  
> language extensions to cover the excluded OWL features.>>
>



> Christian
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 15:45:38 GMT

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