- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:24:24 +0100
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dear All, Obviously, the following usages can be expected, because some need them: 1. translating OWL formulas/specifications in a RIF. 2. querying OWL ontologies in (the antecedent of) a RIF rule - what was refered to as "theory reasoning" two days ago. 3. using RIDF rules for extending/complementing OWL specifications. In my opinion, we should try to keep all these usages possible. 1 and 2 seem to me much easier than 3 and therefore preferable as Phase 1 goals. (My understanding of Uli's mail is that she would favour 3 for Phase 1). Making 1 possible seems to me to be essential, because otherwise, as Ed (Barkmeyer) pointed out, the providers of rule software would not get the help from a RIF theyt need coping with OWL. Regards, François
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 12:24:28 UTC