Re: OWLRL [was: ...(safeness)]

<snip/>

> I say "if" we update the document because assuming Jos replaces his
> OWL-DLP embedding by an OWL 2 RL embedding then we might decide that the
> this document is redundant.

This is something that should probably be discussed, but I do not think
that my OWL 2 RL embedding will make the document redundant.
The embeddings have different purposes.  My embedding is an embedding of
RIF-OWL2RL combinations, whereas your embedding is more restrictive: it
translates certain inference problems in OWL2RL to inference problems in
RIF.  Therefore, your translation can be simpler than my embedding.  For
example, you can use one ruleset that axiomatizes the semantics and
combine it with any OWL2RL ontology in RDF graph form, whereas in my
embedding things like subclass statements and domain and range
statements need to be translated to rules, thereby requiring translation
of each individual ontology.

Best, Jos

> 
> Dave

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
scholar.
  - Donald Foster