- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:42:09 -0500
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Jakub Kotowski <jakubkotowski@gmx.net>, Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-cwm-talk@w3.org
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 13:59 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > On 2010-04 -19, at 15:29, Jakub Kotowski wrote: > > > Dear Olivier, > > > > Olivier Rossel wrote: > >> do you think that cwm's architecture is suitable as a rule engine for OWL2RL? > > > > I'm not an expert on cwm (or OWL for that matter) but I think that most > > OWL 2 RL rules are expressible in N3 rules. You would have to come up > > with a way to translate the rules with "false" in the head > > Typically, one generates a triple putting something into class :Error and then checking the result for that. I tend to look for { ?X owl:differentFrom ?X }, but yes, something like that. > > Anyway, by directly translating the OWL 2 RL rules into N3 you maybe > > would be able to do OWL 2 RL reasoning using cwm but it probably > > wouldn't be very efficient or scalable (e.g. materializing all > > owl:sameAs triples probably isn't the best thing to do). > > cwm has a mode (cwm --closure=e) in which it smushes together two nodes > which are owl:sameAs each other. That could help a little. > > It may well not be scalable, but playing with the rules may be > useful. I see "RETE" in the subject... there are a few cwm-work-alikes that have RETE engines and grok N3: http://code.google.com/p/fuxi/ http://www.mindswap.org/~katz/pychinko/ Euler (http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/ ) is sometimes really fast, too. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 18:42:12 UTC