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

RE: RDF and OWL rules

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:01:15 -0500
To: "'Jos De_Roo'" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: "'RDF Rules'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003701c2f6ff$844c4700$835ec6d1@GSCLAPTOP>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org
> On Behalf Of Jos De_Roo
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 3:04 PM
> To: geoff@sover.net
> Cc: RDF Rules
> Subject: Re: RDF and OWL rules
> Geoff, we have done some axiomatization of
> RDFS and OWL written in N3 triples notation
>  o http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules
>  o http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules

Thanks, that's just the sort of thing I meant. Do you have any
statistics on which of the owl test cases pass and which fail with these
rules? I'll compare them against what I've come up with.

> and it would be nice to unify such efforts.
> My choice for design/test is definitely N3
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/

Perhaps the syntax is less important than the content. It would be
interesting to come up with a common set of rules that could be
implemented in n3/euler, rdfql, and perhaps prolog (I think whatever
subset - formal or not - of owl that is defined by those rules will be
as prevalent as any other.) Undoubtedly we could each then extend the
common set based upon specific features of our languages to get as close
as possible to full owl.

I'll start by publishing my rules on our site, numbering them for
reference and cross-referencing them with your numbered rules.
> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> PS any pointer to your rdfql rules for rdf and owl?

I sent an example as an attachment in my response to Harold Boley - I'll
resend if the attachment doesn't make it through.

Geoff Chappell
Received on Sunday, 30 March 2003 16:04:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:14 UTC