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

Re: [Fwd: Re: here's a draft charter strawman slideset, wrt W3C Rules WG]

From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:39:44 +0200
Message-ID: <42C2B2B0.70408@ifi.lmu.de>
To: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org

Jos wrote: 

>> There has already been a lot of discussion on how to integrate OWL and
>> rules. The two leading (well-known) ways to integrate them are:
>> - - use of a common subset; disadvantage is that many (especially DL
>> advocates) believe that this subset is too small for any useful
>> ontology
>> - - exchange of consequences between the OWL KB and the rule base
>> (e.g.
>> dl-programs by Eiter et al.)
>>
>>
> I know, but I feel uneasy about these proposals, because they are
> nmot clearly defining what for "rules" should be used for.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean the kind of rules which are used?
In the common subset approach we are talking about a restriction of
Datalog.
In Eiter's approach we are talking about full LP with either Stable
Model Semantics or Well-Founded Semantics (dl-programs were defined
for both semantics).

>>> There has already been a lot of discussion on how to integrate OWL and
>>> rules. The two leading (well-known) ways to integrate them are:
>>> - - use of a common subset; disadvantage is that many (especially DL
>>> advocates) believe that this subset is too small for any useful
>>> ontology
>>> - - exchange of consequences between the OWL KB and the rule base
>>> (e.g.
>>> dl-programs by Eiter et al.)
>>>
>>>
>> I know, but I feel uneasy about these proposals, because they are
>> nmot clearly defining what for "rules" should be used for.
>
>I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean the kind of rules which are used?
>In the common subset approach we are talking about a restriction of
>Datalog.
>In Eiter's approach we are talking about full LP with either Stable
>Model Semantics or Well-Founded Semantics (dl-programs were defined
>for both semantics).

What i mean is that there are tow ways to look at rules:

1. Rules as Computer Science means of various kinds for knowledge 
   representation and/or programming, e.g. 
   - derivation rules
   - reactive rules 
   - CHR
   This has been thre frocus of the dicussions in the group up till now. 

2. Rules as encountered in practice, e.g. 
   - database-like views 
   - database-like integrity constraints
   - ontology-like specifications
   - constraints like in constraint programming (e.g. the one hour meeting 
   has to take place between 9:30 and 12:15) 

Of course, the two angles are not disconnected and overlap a lot. But making
more explicit the applications of rules one has in mind surely would help in 
defining the right focus. 

François


-- 
Francois Bry
http://rewerse.net  scientific coordinator
http://www.pms.ifi.lmu.de  head of unit 
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 14:39:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:21 GMT