- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:22:08 -0500 (EST)
- To: bry@ifi.lmu.de
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de> Subject: RIF: minutes telecon 24 Jan 2006 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:08:37 +0100 [...] > 4. OWL & RDF Compatibility [...] > Harold Boley: in rule bodies queries from different languages, including > SPARQL, can be called as external predicates; eg, SWRL calls OWL predicates > from RuleML Umm, SWRL is a rule langauge. One of its syntaxes is based on part of the RuleML syntax. So, it is much more accurate to just say SWRL calls OWL predicates However even this does not accurately portray the true situation. SWRL is based on OWL. The atoms in SWRL rules can directly involve OWL descriptions (including classes) or OWL properties. SWRL does, indeed, have the ability to utilize certain built-in predicates, but these predicates are (supposed to be) platonic predicates like "less than". > Jos De Bruijn: SWRL allows queries in rules? > Harold Boley: SPARQL templates could be represented as (interpreted) > functions defined via rules having an equation in the head. I'm not sure that this is completely possible. It might be possible to admit SPARQL BGP queries into SWRL atoms (at least in the body of rules) without too much modification of the SWRL semantics. However, a complete implementation of such a combination could not be done by simply calling a SPARQL processor outside of a rule engine implementing SWRL - instead an integrated engine would have to be designed. (This is not to say that the integrated engine might not be able to incorporate a lightly-modified SPARQL processor, however.) [...] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 16:22:22 UTC