Hi All --

I have been reading with great interest Ian Horrocks' excellent proposal for OWL Rules,
 http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML/Rules/  , in which he gives a model theory for the meanings of collections of rules.

Ian writes:

   "Rules have variables, so treating them as a semantic extension of
   RDF is very difficult. It is, however, still possible to provide an
   RDF syntax for rules---it is just that the semantics of the resultant
   RDF graphs will not be an extension of the RDF Semantics."

To a mere an outside observer of a major project like OWL/RDF, this looks kind of strange.

It brings to mind some questions:

Why have RDF do any inferencing at all?

Should RDF in future be restricted just a passive data representation ? 

Is it just a distraction to try add the limited inferencing currently posited for RDF itself, since it looks to be incompatible with useful inference-based Semantic Web applications ?

Or, have I missed something here ?   Thanks in advance for your comments.

                                     -- Adrian 

                                           INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC

Business Intelligence Rules in English + Semantic Data Integration + Your Oracle Databases
Dr. Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
PO Box 1412
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029