RE: ruleml and RDF

> Sandro Hawke writes:
> In the team comment on SWRL [1] (which is the voice of
> the W3C staff, NOT the voice of W3C [ie the W3C member or
> "Director"]), I wrote:
> 
>       SWRL connects with RDF in two ways. The crucial connections is
>       that RDF graphs can be directly expressed in SWRL (using only
>       the obvious syntactic transformation) and they have exactly the
>       same meaning. 

Are you sure that this is the case?

It would require to assume OWL-Full, which doesn't seem to be very 
popular among OWLers.

Just one issue is the question if a class has a purely extensional
semantics, as in OWL-DL, or a kind of "intensional" semantics 
(allowing for two classes to be different although they have the
same extension), as in RDF and OWL-Full (and UML!).

This is a very fundamental issue, which does not depend on
the possibility of reification.

-Gerd