RE: ruleml and RDF

> Is the absence of the actual triples bothering you?  If so, you're out
> of luck, because there's really no good way to put them in.

Drew,

why should there be no good way of expressing RDF triples more
directly in a rule language?

Wouldn't something along the lines below, with a suitably
extended semantics, work? 

-----------
<swrl:Variable rdf:ID="x1"/>
<swrl:Variable rdf:ID="x2"/>
<swrl:Variable rdf:ID="x3"/>
<ruleml:Imp> 
  <ruleml:body rdf:parseType="Collection">
    <swrl:rdfTriple> 
      <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x1" />
      <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="&eg;hasParent"/> 
      <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x2" />
    </swrl:rdfTriple>
    <swrl:rdfTriple> 
      <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x2" />
      <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="&eg;hasBrother"/> 
      <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x3" />
    </swrl:rdfTriple>    
  </ruleml:body>
  <ruleml:head rdf:parseType="Collection"> 
    <swrl:rdfTriple> 
      <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x1" />
      <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="&eg;hasUncle"/> 
      <rdf:subject rdf:resource="#x3" />
    </swrl:rdfTriple>    
  </ruleml:head> 
</ruleml:Imp> 
----------

Gerd Wagner
http://is.tm.tue.nl/staff/gwagner