- From: Jakub Kotowski <jakubkotowski@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:29:43 +0200
- To: Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-cwm-talk@w3.org
Dear Olivier, Olivier Rossel wrote: > do you think that cwm's architecture is suitable as a rule engine for OWL2RL? I'm not an expert on cwm (or OWL for that matter) but I think that most OWL 2 RL rules are expressible in N3 rules. You would have to come up with a way to translate the rules with "false" in the head and I am not sure how the LIST[] expression would be translated to N3 (see for example rule eq-diff2). Anyway, by directly translating the OWL 2 RL rules into N3 you maybe would be able to do OWL 2 RL reasoning using cwm but it probably wouldn't be very efficient or scalable (e.g. materializing all owl:sameAs triples probably isn't the best thing to do). What is your use case? I'm CCing the cwm mailing list perhaps someone will know more. Jakub > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Jakub Kotowski <jakubkotowski@gmx.net> wrote: >> Dear Olivier, >> >> Olivier Rossel schrieb: >>> Is there a reference list of all the rules to be implemented by a >> rules engine >>> to be fully compliant with RL? >> The rules are given already in the spec: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#Reasoning_in_OWL_2_RL_and_RDF_Graphs_using_Rules >> >>> Or, even better, a reference implementation of OWL2-RL for an existing >>> rules engine? >> I don't know about any _reference_ implementation but there are some >> initial implementations - I know Ivan Herman made one and there are >> other (such as the SAOR reasoner [2]) that are close to OWL 2 RL which >> partly implement the pD* [1] semantics. >> >> Regards, >> Jakub >> >> >> [1] http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1570826805000144 >> [2] >> http://axel.deri.ie/presentations/20081029saor_ISWC_btriples_challenge.pdf >> >
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 19:30:23 UTC