Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal

From: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Subject: RE: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:29:15 +0200

> > But, OK, here is a sketch of my proposal:
> > 
> > 3/ Either RDF or OWL can be used to provide information.  
> 
> Can or must? If it's just an option to use them, what
> else may be used?

Well, that is an interesting question.  I do worry about using raw XML
data, but if someone can come up with a good model-theoretic account of
unvarnished XML that is compatible with RDF (or OWL) then I would certainly
add XML as a permissable data source.

I would say for now that RDF (or OWL) *should* be used as the source of
most non-rule information, but that degenerate rules (a.k.a. facts) might
also be permissable.

> > 4/ The semantics is a model-theoretic semantics similar to 
> > the semantics of RDF or OWL. 
> 
> I think this is too narrow to be feasible for RIF.
> We want to accommodate RDF and OWL, but we don't want
> to be bound to it.

Why is this not feasible for *phase 1* of the RIF?  After all, phase 1
won't have defaults or procedural elements, won't it?

> > 5/ Compliance for formalism X will be measured as follows:
> >    a/ Partial mappings will be provided between the syntaxes 
> > of X and the
> >       RIF, including mappings between X's data language and 
> > RDF or OWL.
> >    b/ A subset of the RIF will be identified as being X-compliant.
> 
> I think that also for the target language X, a matching subset 
> will have to be identified.

Yes, this would be useful.  I don't know if it is necessary to separately
define this subset, however, as I expect that one could just use the
X-image of the X-compliant RIF subset.

> >    c/ For that subset the deductive behaviour of X must 
> > "mirror" reasoning in the RIF.
>  
> It seems that the essential disagreement between your proposal
> and our proposal is point 4/. We basically agree on all other
> points.
> 
> -Gerd

Well I think that I disagree very much on the role of RDF (or OWL) as well.
I would give it a central position, whereas the proposal appears to
relegate it to something more like an afterthought.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Friday, 19 May 2006 10:58:28 UTC