- From: Peter Crowther <peter@crowther.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:52:42 +0100
- To: "Bob MacGregor" <macgregor@ISI.EDU>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Bob MacGregor > Point (v): RDF syntax is horrible. The OWL languages inherit > that horribleness. I believe that OWL does, however, have a (non-normative) XML presentation syntax that is less bad. Mind you, I can't find any announcement of that. > When you > buy into OWL-DL, you may be kissing good-bye to > rule-based inference. Why is this bad? Given the availability of DL inference engines such as FaCT and RACER, and experience with the integration of these with rules engines in systems such as TRIPLE, I'd argue that we can benefit from the advantages of both. I don't see why we should shackle ourselves to logical systems that are amenable to rule-based inference. - Peter -- Peter Crowther, CTO, Melandra Limited
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2003 17:08:37 UTC