W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2003

Re: (Round 2) Proposed Extensions to OWL

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:23:58 -0400
Message-ID: <001801c3461d$5d146740$6401a8c0@tbp1>
To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

[Roger L. Costello]
> I was just reading an article about RuleML:
> "(RuleML) Transformation rules are also useful for expressing
> mathematical functions ..."
> This triggered an idea - suppose the we embed a RuleML fragment within
> an OWL statement.  The RuleML fragment describes how to transform, say,
> miles to kilometers, e.g.,
> <owlx:Transform rdf:ID="MilesToKilometers">
>       <owlx:tolerance>...</owlx:tolerance>
>       <owlx:inputValue>...</owlx:inputValue>
>       <owlx:outputValue>...</owlx:outputValue>
>       <owlx:inputUnits rdf:resource="#Miles"/>
>       <owlx:outputUnits rdf:resource="#Kilometers"/>
>       <ruleML:trans>...</ruleML:trans>
> </owlx:Transform>
> The <ruleML:trans> element contains the RuleML statements which describe
> how to transform miles to kilometers.
> Looks promising to me.  What do you think? Does anyone have experience
> with RuleML?  /Roger

That might be good - if we have a more general "G" function (this goes back
to my previous couple of posts) we could refer to it, otherwise use a RuleML
expression.  I forgot that I knew about RuleML.  I never did anything with
it so I have no experience either.  Still, it amounts  an existing ontology
at least, and I gather there is software too.


Tom P
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 09:19:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:46 UTC