W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > August 2005

2 - Relationship with OWL

From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:17:29 +0200
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20050823165933.0510d078@mail1.uibk.ac.at>
To: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org

Dear Jim,

everybody that is not foolish wants to have maximal interoperability
of the rule language with OWL. Unfortunately there are some laws of
computation in place that prevent us from including more than a slight
subset of OWL-Lite [1] in a rule language without loosing all the reasons
for using a rule language at all. Rule languages have evolved because
of their efficiency in instance reasoning over large instance population.
Injecting too heavy language constructs stemming from Description
Logic will kill this and therefore any justification in using rules at all.
Indeed, than you can use directly FOL with equality instead since you
are no longer staying a computational interesting subset of FOL.

More pragmatic, do you really try to enforce all vendors of rule engines
to reimplement their rule inference engines on top of a Description
Logic reasoner. Whereas one company may like this idea all other
vendors may be a bit skeptical about this?

	-- dieter

[1] Basically Deductive Logic Programming
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/
Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 15:18:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:23 GMT