- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:11:08 +0100
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- Cc: bparsia@isr.umd.edu, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
>> >Now, the charter talks about FOL rule languages and there will be a need to >> >devise a RIF encoding for something like SWRL. But I doubt that it will >> >look like a translation into FOL (one that extends the usual translation >> >from DL to FOL). >> >> Prolly not. >> >> Bottom line is that there *are* (a few, experimental) systems that have >> proceeded via a translation of OWL DL to FOL, with surprisingly good results. >> (KAON2 also works this way, since it hits disjunctive datalog via the FOL >> translation...however, that's far far far from a transliterate and go approach.) > > It is one thing to translate in order to implement and another in order to > exchange. For the latter, translating into FOL would be useless, I believe. Using a more expressive language to implement less expressive ones is indeed doable and I have done some test cases written in OWL+N3 and been running with prover9 and E theorem prover. That works pretty well, but is not what I do when I can use for instance SQL and Prolog engines or SPARQL and N3 engines. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 4 March 2006 11:11:42 UTC