- From: Uli Sattler <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:51:06 +0000
- To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 3 Mar 2006, at 12:24, Francois Bry wrote: > > Dear All, > > Obviously, the following usages can be expected, because some need > them: > > 1. translating OWL formulas/specifications in a RIF. in my understanding, for OWL, we will need (as for any other "formalism" we might want to consider) a translator that takes some OWL and maps it into RIF. It is, however, not the job of RIF to provide this translator. Moreover, there could be different such translators: e.g., one translator could simply extract the (implicit) class hierarchy from an OWL ontology, whereas others could take ALL of this ontology --- in case that RIF captures full first order logic (the real one, with existentials in the head and a possibly infinite domain). > 2. querying OWL ontologies in (the antecedent of) a RIF rule - what > was > refered to as "theory reasoning" two days ago. ok, this is what I called the "uni-directional" approach. > 3. using RIDF rules for extending/complementing OWL specifications. ok, this would be my "bi-directional" approach. > 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). hm, for phase 1, I favour an approach where (3) is well-understood and powerful, i.e., what I call the bi-directional approach. > Making 1 possible As indicated above, I agree with "making 1 possible" but not with "Realizing 1" Cheers, Uli > 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 12:52:16 UTC