- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 12:14:09 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Alex Kozlenkov <alex.kozlenkov@betfair.com>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
>
> Alex Kozlenkov wrote:
>
> > I am not sending a message against OWL or RDF. I am simply asking
> > whether _querying_ RDF and OWL in rule antecedents is enough or not for
> > RIF at this time.
>
> As I've already said in my response to the proposal, external-query-only
> is not sufficient from my point of view. I need to be able to express at
> least deduction rules over RDF and an external query approach doesn't
> facilitate that. I would prefer a tighter embedding of RDF into RIF
> (e.g. either a three place predicate or the ability to interpret any
> atoms over binary relations as RDF triple patterns).
I think people have different ideas regarding what an "external query"
means - hence all this discussion (probably).
For me, an external query means a predicate that represents some particular
aspects of an external system. This can have (and should have) several forms.
For instance, if I just want to query RDF triples, OWL classes or roles,
then I should just be able to use 3-place/2-place/1-place predicates for
those things. E.g., motherOf(?X,?Y) to query the mother-of role in OWL.
You can write your RDF or whatever rules over these predicates, and I think
this satisfies your requirements.
But I also may want to send a SPARQL query to an RDF base or to send a DL
expression to an OWL system.
For that we should have something like
rdf_query('sparql stuff', list-of-variables-to-be-bound)
owl_query('some DL expr',...)
--michael
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 16:14:17 UTC