Re: [BLD] some more commments which I didn't manage to type in yesterday...

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> Cherry picking a bit.
> 
> On 3 Oct 2007, at 19:01, Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> I don't like this notion of a multitude of dialects;
> 
> I share this dislike.

Well, the species distinction is a fact in current OWL, isn't it? It was 
not that I meant to say I was particularly happy with that situation 
(just to clarify), but I thought it could be necessary to be reflected 
in RIF, when we define compatibility.

>> this just makes
>> things far too complicated. I also do not really see any obvious
>> criteria we could use for identifying these dialects, apart from the
>> distinction horn/not horn, which basically boils down to OWL DLP/DL
 >
> Well, there are other horn and horn like fragments, e.g., hornSHIQ.
> 
> One job of OWL-WG is to rationalize the species. I'm sure the needs  of 
> RIF are great input for that.
 >
  > [snip]
> 
>>> Ok, in the OWLED meeting in Innsbruck (which certainly is a different
>>> issue thant the now active working group), I had the impression that
>>> what they want to go for in this dierection is a "stamp" for DL-safe.
>>> Anyway, htey can always define dialects for that.
>>
>> What "they" want is different from what the charter is of a working  
>> group.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> This is very true. However, OWLED does strive to build consensus in  the 
> OWL community (or significant fragments thereof), so I would hope  that 
> input from OWLED would be welcome and helpful to RIF.

It certainly is (from my side, definitly)! I was unsure here what 
exactly went into the charter from the DL-safe idea which could 
definitly be a good idea for a RIF dialect ... such a restriction would 
fit with my initial ideas on [Arch], I think, (well I still have to 
prove that, of course)

> There is an OWLED task force working on DL Safe SWRL rules for OWL  
> (i.e., defining a syntax, generating tutorials, getting implementors  
> behind it), so I think it will be a significant rules formalism  related 
> to OWL.
>>
>> DL-safe rules  are simply a syntactic restriction on the case of
>> combination with OWL DL; the semantics are strictly FOL.  If we are
>> going to support OWL DL, then I certainly want to mention this
>> particular restriction.  We might even want to include particular
>> support for it in the language ( i.e. adding implicit predicates to  the
>> rules which have forced this restriction ).
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Twould be good to coordinate a tad. 

Yes, I guess we will have to revive the Liaisson section of the telecons 
in the future a bit more, sure! :-)

best,
axel

> Speaking as an OWL vendor with  
> significant interest in rule extensions (of various sorts!) it would  be 
> nice if RIF met our needs enough that we could usefully, for  example, 
> contribute to CR. Evangilizing to the users is a good way to  do that, 
> for us.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 18:47:41 UTC