Re: Inference in daml

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Hendler" <jhendler@darpa.mil>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>; "Ian Horrocks"
<horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: Inference in daml


> At 7:25 PM -0400 6/20/01, Geoff Chappell wrote:
> >tes that would help Geoff and others with
> >  > similar requirements.
> >
> >Thanks for the responses.
> >
> >I'm serializing inference rules now in rdf in a proprietary schema and
> >thought it would be better to use daml so that the rules could
potentially
> >be understood by another processor. I'm getting the impression that
that's
> >beyond the intent of current daml language so even if I succeed there
might
> >not be much value in it (since other systems would be unlikely to
properly
> >interpret the rules properly).
>
> Wait - I think there is confusion here - Geoff, serializing the rules
> in DAML will indeed add power. You can then link the rules to
> ontological info, put restrictions on various fillers, and all the
> other things DAML allows.  What we don't have is a standardized model
> for expressing rules in general.  There are some kinds of inferencing
> that is built into the semantics - and that is what Ian and I have
> been discussing - but as a language for what you want to do, it
> should definitely be advantageous over raw RDF ( -- i.e. when you say
> "other systems would be unlikely to interpret the rules properly -
> you have that same problem, moreso, in raw RDF -- in DAML, you get
> some of this done for free, but you'll still need to do some yourself
> - in RDF you're doing it all)

No, I believe we were all talking about the same goal. Today I encode rules
in a proprietary rdf schema (really just a serialization in rdf of an
external language). I could certainly, as you say, use a daml-based schema
to produce a more restrictive schema for the serialization of my rules. But
my intent was to transform the rules themselves into daml, not the
serialization of the rules.

Geoff

Received on Friday, 22 June 2001 14:54:03 UTC