- From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:54:29 +0100
- To: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>,<edbark@nist.gov>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
At 17:57 08.02.2006 +0100, Gerd Wagner wrote:
> > 2) Mentioning SWRL to me is not very convincing either. It is
> > a political motivated restriction of FOL without returning anything
> > in return in terms of computational complexity.
>
>I share your reservations, but we have to acknowledge
>the fact that the OWL community has already embraced
>SWRL, and many of our RIF colleagues endorse it, so
>it will play some role in the RIF effort.
>
>-Gerd
(1) SWRL is not a rule language since it does not identify a sub
fragment
of logics that is interesting in computational terms. SWRL is
simply yet another
strange syntax for FOL.
(2) If you want to talk about interesting member submission to W3C
on rule languages
take a look at the Web Rule Language (WRL).
(3) I do not know what you mean with the OWL community but as a member
of it I am fully committed to OWL but neither to SWRL nor OWL-S
nor any of
its additional dilutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/
Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8
Skype: dieterfensel
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 20:59:01 UTC