- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:10:44 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
On 1 Jul 2005, at 23:31, Michael Kifer wrote: [snip] I guess everyone is pretty bored with this by now (I know I am), and I think we both made our positions clear. One remaining point that may be worth clarifying, however... >> Regarding "the truly complex parts of SWRL, such as descriptions in >> the >> head", I'm not sure what you mean by this. The SWRL rules given in the >> paper are used *in addition* to axioms such as the one above, and >> capture additional property relationships that cannot be expressed in >> OWL. In the general case, such rules lead to undecidability when >> combined even with OWL-Lite. Is that complex enough? > > Ian, you are not following. The discussion was about SWRL, not OWL. Now I understand your confusion. The important point you have missed is that SWRL is an extension of OWL-DL: if you look at the specification, you will see that SWRL is OWL-DL with the *addition* of a new kind of axiom expressing Horn clause rules. > I was asking if you have examples of interesting uses of the more > advanced > features of SWRL (not OWL) where complex rules are used. You pointed > me to > this paper, but the rules there are very simple. So, this didn't > satisfy my > curiosity. (Again, nothing against Christine's great project.) The interesting/advanced features involve the use of several kinds of SWRL axiom, not just Horn clause axioms. That is what is going on here. I hope everything is now clear. Ian > > > --michael > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 13:10:50 UTC