Craig --

In our system, we integrate modeling -- via rules in open vocabulary English -- with highly declarative reasoning over RDF and other data.

The system is live, online at, the author- and user-interface is simply a browser, and experimental use is free.

The example RDFQueryLangComparison1 might be a good one to start with. 

If you have a specific use case in mind, please describe it.  It will be interesting to see how it plays (or does not play) in the system.

You are welcome also to write and run your own examples.

HTH,  -- Adrian

At 08:14 AM 10/12/2004 +0100, you wrote:

The commercial arena is currently bereft of tooling to take uniquely qualified concepts up through Schema and into ontology modelling technologies. - In practice this needs both a top-down and bottom-up approach to modelling in order to validate the concepts involved - ideally this would provide the ability to round trip within the metadata stack.

I have recently encountered the concept of:

Extending Schema to include the 'RDF triples' (i.e. reference out to a namespace that contains RDF properties but not RDF documents themselves). On the face of it this sounds a reasonable idea but it also worries me as:

A) I am aware that there is current discussion within the semantic web community to maintain a disjoint between content and metadata. Surely applying RDF within Schema is contradictory to this convention?

B) RDF was designed as a solution for a specific problem space - giving processes and elements context and meaning - Schema wasn't designed for this (if it was there wouldn't be RDF);

C) It prevents adopting newer standards and technologies building upon RDF;
D) It makes the schema too fat and cludgy;
E) Schema is an implementation technology, RDF is a modelling technology.

I would welcome your views and thoughts.


Craig Gannon
Tel: +44 (0) 7711 822 910