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

<snip/>

>> 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.

I personally would definitely welcome input from the OWL community.
However, the OWL community is currently underrepresented in the working
group.

> 
> 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. 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.

Yes, I would like to coordinate.
What are your needs exactly?

Best, Jos

> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is
thinking with the majority. The second-rate
mind is only happy when it is thinking with
the minority. The first-rate mind is only
happy when it is thinking.
  - AA Milne