W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Expressiveness question

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:40:03 -0500
Message-Id: <A2000FDE-396D-11D8-B67A-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: <sheila@cs.toronto.edu>, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
To: Sheila McIlraith <sam@ksl.Stanford.EDU>

On Dec 28, 2003, at 1:44 PM, Sheila McIlraith wrote:

> Thanks for the response.  One of the objectives of this post was
> to get a clear statement from someone developing SWRL regarding:
> - what extra expressivity was required in order to encode a typical
>   situation calculus axiomatization
> - was it possible to extend the language.

The latter question is a bit off. Of course, it's possible to extend 
the language in the technical sense. I think what we need to know is 
whether *the extensions we need* are likely candidates to be rolled 
into an actual SWRL release, so we can build on that common base.

> As you note, function symbols are one necessary extension.

My current list, from observation now has biconditionals and function 
symbols. Anything else?

> And to reiterate your question, is SWRL meant "to be an open-ended
> framework, or a notation nailed to a rigid OWL frame?"

My understanding from the presentations et al, is that the OWL Rules 
proposal was meant to be a minimal extension to owl to allow rule like 
things, and let any further additions be audience driven. It's also 
designed to be an extension of OWL, so as to build upon (future) OWL 
experience and infrastructure.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 28 December 2003 14:40:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:11 GMT