OWL reasoning in rules

Hi All --

As usual, Matt asks the good questions.

Actually, you can to a large extent have your expressiveness cake and eat
it.

The theory foundation for this is in the paper [1], and [2] is an overview.

As you may know, the underlying inference engine automatically combines
forward and back chaining in order to assign a non-procedural meaning to the
rules.

Some examples of reasoning over OWLish data are [3,4,5].  The example [6]
would be a good challenge for OWL.  You are cordially invited to write and
run your own examples.

HTH,                 Cheers,  -- Adrian

[1]  Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is
Simple
  Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated
Reasoning, 11:1-22

[2]
ww.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf

[3]  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/OwlResearchOnt.agent

[4]  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/OwlTest1.agent

[5]  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/TransitiveOver1.agent

[6]  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/RelBioOntDefn3.agent


Internet Business Logic (R)
A Wiki for Executable Open Vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com    Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering