- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:39:34 +0100
- To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <47D83F86.8000805@inf.unibz.it>
Dear all, I finished all to do's related to the RDF and OWL compatibility document [1], with the exception of those that depend on the definition of the semantics of BLD, which is not yet finalized (I included markers to indicate which things will need to be changed). The biggest changes are the new introduction to the OWL compatibility section, which no explains why there is a difference between the DL and Full semantics. I also slightly changed the semantics of RIF-OWL DL compatibility so that classes and properties now interpreted differently from unary and binary predicates, so that it is still possible to use such predicates in RIF-OWL DL combinations. Finally, I extended the embeddings appendix to embed also part of RIF-OWL DL combinations. I identified a DLP subset and defined in the embedding of RIF-OWL DLP combinations into RIF. Incidentally, this embedding uses negative guards (e.g., isNotString) for the embedding of ranges of datatype properties (guard predicates are not allowed to occur in rule heads, so instead of a positive guard in the head, we need a negative guard in the body). The embedding is currently quite dry; I will add some explanatory text later on. Best, Jos [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC -- debruijn@inf.unibz.it Jos de Bruijn, http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- One man that has a mind and knows it can always beat ten men who haven't and don't. -- George Bernard Shaw
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 20:39:54 UTC