- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:52:24 -0500
- To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
#3 is what I called in my talk "integration" with OWL. #2 is what I called "interoperation". Both should be in Phase 1, but #2 is easier and has wider applicability. #1 is practically useless, if we are talking about some standard proposal. Some users might be able to get some kick out of it but: 1. They will do better with option #2; and 2. As Uli said, writing #1-style translators shouldn't be RIF's job. --michael > 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 16:52:40 UTC