- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:04:46 +0100
- To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On Jul 16, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Eric Jain wrote: > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> We've got a SW language for making definitions - it's called OWL. > > One thing I can say here is that there is the trend that curators > create rules (and check the outcome) instead of adding data > themselves directly. Unfortunately OWL is insufficient for the kind > of ugly rules they need to create; maybe SWRL will allow us to > distribute at least part of the rules. [snip] Eric, I would be very much interested in some more details about the sort of rules used and how they are used. I personally tend to distinguish between the use of rules in modeling and the use of rules for data munging tasks. Obviously, where you draw this boundary can be a matter of taste and situation, but it seems to be a useful distinction. It's unclear to me where the rules you describe fall. There is some effort coming out of OWLED 2007 to improve the infrastructure situation (from implementation to documentation) with regard to rules and OWL, so any information you can give on use patterns and needs would be very helpful. (Also, C&P has a summer intern working on rule support in Pellet and having real uses would be nicely motivating :)). Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 17:04:50 UTC