Re: (Round 2) Proposed Extensions to OWL

[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.

Cheers,

Tom P