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

RE: RDF and OWL rules

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:45:09 -0500
To: "'Dave Reynolds'" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'RDF Rules'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006401c2f7a4$e76cce40$835ec6d1@GSCLAPTOP>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org
> On Behalf Of Dave Reynolds
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:59 AM
> To: Geoff Chappell
> Cc: RDF Rules
> Subject: Re: RDF and OWL rules
> I'm working along similar lines - as one route to providing (partial)
> support in Jena2.
> I'm certainly happy to exchange ideas on this. 

Great! I look forward to making continued progress on this.

>I'm not sure that a common
> set,
> that can be mechanically translated into each implementation language,
> tractable due to differences in engine assumptions (datalog or not,
> of
> built-in primitives etc). However, a reference set that developers can
> as a
> guide to specific implementations would be good.

I agree that's probably a better goal (at least initially). So what's
the best way to express the scope of the effort - an axiomatization of
rdf(s) and owl in LP-style rules? There'd clearly be branches off of
that that depended upon/are limited by the semantics of a particular
reasoner (datalog, stratification, wfs, etc.) and the available

> There might also be some value in sharing additional test cases. The
> working
> group tests are obviously the main tests of concern, but there may be
> role for
> richer test cases for subsets other than OWL-DL (which is well catered
> in
> the WG informative tests).

Tests that help to define the boundaries of the owl subset achievable
via an axiomatization would be particularly useful.

> Dave
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 11:48:36 UTC

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