W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Peter's example

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 00:10:21 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF95373F51.B09370D7-ON41256B37.0078C6E1@bayer-ag.com>
> A couple of points with respect to the owl rules and euler.
>
> 1/ Where is the formal specification of what Euler is doing?  I'm trying to
>    figure it out by example, but a formal spec is needed.


that is indeed very needed, but for the moment we don't have one...
however, I can partly refer to [1] chapters 3 and 4
certainly w.r.t.
  o Prolog unification (substitutions, unifiers)
  o resolution algorithm
  o backtracking
  o box trace model

this is of course partly and among other stuff, we also have
  o Euler path detection (maybe this is close to Loveland's
    "Model Elimination" (I still have to check that in detail))
  o "existential introduction rule" generation (w.r.t. RDF bNodes)
  o unification of variable predicates (highly experimental and
    using inspiration from Hayes&Menzel [2])
  o as much as possible from DanC's and TimBL's SWAP [3]


> 2/ The rules in owl-rules.n3 don't correspond to the model theory for
>    DAML+OIL or to the axiomatization either, as they generate extra lists
>    and classes.  (This is fine, of course, if you are not trying to capture
>    either of these.)


(we still have a long way to go...)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

[1] ISBN 3-540-59304-7 Prolog: The Standard - Reference Manual
    -- P.Deransart, A. Ed-Dbali, L. Cervoni

[2] http://reliant.teknowledge.com/IJCAI01/HayesMenzel-SKIF-IJCAI2001.pdf

[3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2000/10/swap/
Received on Friday, 4 January 2002 18:10:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT