ashok malhotra wrote:
> The proposal is that RIF be one possible syntax for the mapping 
> language, not the only syntax, correct?
> Seems reasonable.  A rule consists of 2 parts and in our case the parts 
> may be, say, the name of an OWL class and the SQL query that can be used 
> to query that class,

I see the use of RIF more in the spirit of using datalog (which are 
essentially also rules) for data integration. So the head of the rule 
defines the resulting class, while the tail selects predicates (from the 
relational DB).

This seems to be consistent with slide 5 of Axel's talk, which we 
unfortunately did not manage to discuss today since some of the syntax 
there is not completely obvious to me.

Have a nice weekend!


Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 20:17:39 UTC