W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Introduction qua OWLWG liaison

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:56:48 -0500
Message-ID: <4731D230.9050001@inf.unibz.it>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Welcome aboard!

What we have so far regarding OWL compatibility is a page listing some
basic issues which need to be dealt with when defining compatibility
with owl:

The page has not yet been discussed in the working group.

Best, Jos

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> At the last OWLWG telecon, I was appointed the OWLWG liason to the RIF:
>     <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.31/Minutes>
> (search for "Bijan with RIF").
>  I also am part of the OWLED task force on DL Safe rules:
>     <http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/SafeRules>
> I also am involved with both OWL+Rules reasoner implementations (e.g.,
> Pellet:
>     <http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/category/semweb/rules/swrl/>)
> and editor implementations (historically, Swoop, and currently Protege4
> derivatives). I know the people working on the Protege3.x series SWRL
> tab and similar efforts.
> Obviously, y'all know me from my occasional email contributions to this
> list. As liaison, I'm happy to convey any questions or concerns from the
> RIF to the OWLWG, as well as evangelize RIF-OWL synergies more
> generally. Obviously, the direct concern of the OWLWG is on the OWL
> compatibility front. There seem to me to be three areas of possible
> interest to the OWLWG:
>     1) Round tripping horn or other fragments.
> If you look at the tractable fragments document of OWL1.1:
>     <http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/tractable.html>
> it turns out that most (all?) of the fragments are *practically* horn
> reducible. That is, it is a reasonable implementation to translate them
> fairly naively to horn rules and run them on a more or less standard
> Datalog engine. (SHIQ can, practically, be reduced to disjunctive
> datalog, as shown by KAON2, but that seems to be a different kettle of
> fish).
> Aside from this implementation fact, one can imagine wanting to round
> trip different aspects of the OWL syntax through a RIF based rules
> implementation.
>     2) Extending OWL with Rules (DL Safe, Weakly DL safe, hex
> predicates, etc.)
>     3) Data predicates and builtins.
> Less directly of interest to the WG per se, I think, but of considerable
> interest to me and I assume other participants is:
>     A) Extending (various) Rule Systems with OWL
> (Of course, some of these are just variants of 2 and, indeed, 1, but
> some might not be. So if there are hooks or other things the OWLWG could
> add to support, e.g., Production rule system's calling OWL reasoners,
> I'm sure the group would be happy to consider them.)
> My personal goal qua liaison is to avoid anything that might cause
> either group's schedule to slip.
> I do not intend to participate as a full member of the group (having
> OWLWG is already nigh more than I can handle) and, unfortunately, U.
> Manchester does not have other resources for that. So, I'll be focus
> pretty exclusively on the relationship to OWL. To that end, I'm happy to
> answer questions, convey questions, try to recruit reviewers and
> implementors, etc. I'll also happily call into the odd telecon to
> facilitate progress, esp. if we can arrange the agenda to cover as much
> of any OWL topics in as few telecons as possible.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.


Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
In heaven all the interesting people are
  - Friedrich Nietzsche

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 14:57:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:48 UTC