W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: OWLRL [was: ...(safeness)]

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:33:48 +0100
Message-ID: <49424C1C.2000408@inf.unibz.it>
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 
> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>> <snip/>
>>
>>> I say "if" we update the document because assuming Jos replaces his
>>> OWL-DLP embedding by an OWL 2 RL embedding then we might decide that the
>>> this document is redundant.
>>
>> This is something that should probably be discussed, but I do not think
>> that my OWL 2 RL embedding will make the document redundant.
>> The embeddings have different purposes.  My embedding is an embedding of
>> RIF-OWL2RL combinations, whereas your embedding is more restrictive: it
>> translates certain inference problems in OWL2RL to inference problems in
>> RIF.  Therefore, your translation can be simpler than my embedding.  For
>> example, you can use one ruleset that axiomatizes the semantics and
>> combine it with any OWL2RL ontology in RDF graph form, whereas in my
>> embedding things like subclass statements and domain and range
>> statements need to be translated to rules, thereby requiring translation
>> of each individual ontology.
> 
> True but my document currently provides both a static rule set which, as
> you say, processes any OWL2RL ontology in RDF graph form and separately
> an algorithm for translating an OWL2RL ontology (in RDF graph form) to a
> RIF rule set. The second is the one Sandro was suggesting dropping and
> seems redundant with your updated algorithm. If I drop that then the
> redundancy disappears and we just have to decide if the remainder of the

Sounds like a reasonable way to proceed.

> OWL 2 RL doc (when improved) should end up as:
> 
> (a) A separate RIF standards track document
> (b) A W3C Note
> (c) A section in the OWL Profile document
> (d) An appendix in your SWC document.

I would suggest to go for either b or c, since it is not really a
standard (ruling out option a) and since it doesn't have much to do with
compatibility (ruling out d).

Best, Jos

> 
> Dave

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
scholar.
  - Donald Foster


Received on Friday, 12 December 2008 11:33:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:00 GMT