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

Re: 2 - Relationship with OWL

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:51:31 -0400
Message-Id: <p06230930bf322b9dadc2@[]>
To: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org

At 17:17 +0200 8/23/05, Dieter Fensel wrote:
>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

I think I'm beginning to understand where a number of the disconnects 
are coming from - really depends if you include among "rule language" 
something like CLIPS and the other descendants of OPS5 and the expert 
systems days (whcih are widely used), whether some of the transaction 
monitoring sorts of business rules used in large scale databases 
count, whether the sort of rule sets for policies that some of the 
folks at the Workshop used ... these are different in general and 
some of the folks at the Workshop said in their papers they need some 
of this (so the things like procedural extensions come from the needs 
of these sorts of systems)

Let me be clear on something - I have not advocated the use of FOL - 
that doesn't come from me.  I also don't oppose it either - from my 
point of view I'm not terribly concerned with the underlying semantic 
model of the rules but more with what is expected to be done, and 
what sort of rules must be covered - use cases motivate me a lot more 
than this, and I thought the use cases Sandro had in the charter 
draft were a good start...
Professor James Hendler			  Director
Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery	  	  301-405-2696
UMIACS, Univ of Maryland			  301-314-9734 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20742	 		  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/~hendler
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 03:52:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:33 UTC