- From: Uli Sattler <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:44:21 +0000
- To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 7 Mar 2006, at 14:58, Christian de Sainte Marie wrote: > > Uli Sattler wrote: >> 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. > > Hear! Hear! > thanks for the polite tone > However, it is our job (per the charter) to discuss the mapping and > identify what can be mapped from OWL to RIF and what cannot: As I said in the part you cut off, there can be different such mappings, and therefor different such translators -- and I made a clear distinction between the mappings and their implementations (a.k.a. translators), and only stated that the RIF as a *formalism* will not provide the translators. I did *not* say (I guess this is what you understood) that it is not the WG's job to demonstrate some such translators. > <<This document [the REC on using le RIF in combination with OWL] > must clearly state which features of OWL can be mapped to (or > otherwise interoperate with) Phase 1 rules and which cannot, and > software using this mapping must be demonstrated during > interoperability testing. The document may also discuss rule > language extensions to cover the excluded OWL features.>> > > Christian > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 15:45:38 UTC