- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:13:39 +0200
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss-request@w3.org
> We're talking about one language which is a superset of many of the > common languages, so it can be used as an interlingua. You translate > your ruleset into it, and if you can translate it back out into > another vendor's language (because it has enough features), your rules > will mean the same thing. I'm surprised the mission statement > isn't clear on this. to me it is Sandro at least what I did was for a number of test cases 1/ write rules and integrity constraints in first order notation N3 2/ encode that in an XML syntax like explained in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Aug/0080.html 3/ translate that into o swi-prolog and bprolog o pttp, prover9 and eprover o cwm and euler after rountrip back to N3 and got the derivations that I expected to get or the system was not capable to run the test case -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 13:14:48 UTC