- From: <Joachim.Peer@unisg.ch>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:12:45 +0100
- To: "Charlie Abela" <abcharl@keyworld.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Hi Charlie, >So why is it >necessary for DAML+OIL or OWL (being based on it, even though more >expressive) to be augmented with rules? the point is that Description Logics (like DAML+OIL/SHIQ or OWL) are just *fragements* of first order logics, *forbiding or restricting * the use of certain elements of logics (which, in turn, enable more efficient reasoning). The restrictions where designed in a way that they do not really hurt the application area of Description Logics, that is, the description of things/domains. Now, as we are dealing with the application area of Web Service Descriptions there is quite some information that we would like to capture (for example complex rules for calculating the price of a product, etc.) but that is not necessarily possible DL's restricted set of logical constructs. Among the restrictions are: * to use only unary and binary predicates to describe the domain * to define concepts using _one_ free variable, i.e. a concept definition is a formula with one free var. For a detailleddescription of the relationship between FOL, Horn Logics and DL i recommend the following articles: * Benjamin N. Grosof and Ian Horrocks: "Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic" By . Working Paper, version of Nov. 21, 2002. (http://ebusiness.mit.edu/bgrosof/paps/dlp-wp-v19.pdf) * Alon Y. Levy and Marie-Christine Rousset: "CARIN: A Representation Language Combining Horn Rules and Description Logics", European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1996 (http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/levy96carin.html) * Ulrike Sattler, Diego Calvanese, and Ralf Molitor : "Relationship with other Formalisms", in: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, 2003 (http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~franconi/dl/course/dlhb/dlhb-04.pdf) >Where will these be introduced in TBL's semantic web layers? AFAIK, people currently draw the layer cake as follows xml < rdf m&s < rdf schema < ontology < rules < logic framework < proof < trust [where "x < y" means y is built on top of x] cheers and greeting to (i bet, sunny?) Malta :-) joachim Joachim Peer Research Assistant MCM Institute, University of St. Gallen Blumenbergplatz 9, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland Phone: ++41 (0) 71 224 3441, Fax: ++41 (0) 71 224 2771 "Charlie Abela" <abcharl@keyworld An: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org> .net> Kopie: Gesendet von: Thema: Semantic languages and rules www-rdf-logic-req uest@w3.org 18.02.2003 16:28 Hi all, I have read the mailing thread RE: Action Items written by Pat Hayes and dated 02/12/03 in the US/EU joint-committee archive. It sparked some thoughts in my mind about some issues which a newbie like myself might take as forgranted. I am presently doing some research on semantic web applications in particular about semantic web services composition. From what I have been reading about rules, rule markup, defintion of business rules, use of rules for Ws composition, I am now feeling a bit confused about all this. Consider DAML+OIL, based on DL and capable of expressing knowledge in machine interpretable format. With DAML+OIL one can specify a number of facts from which inferencing of other facts can be made. So why is it necessary for DAML+OIL or OWL (being based on it, even though more expressive) to be augmented with rules? Where will these be introduced in TBL's semantic web layers? Also and this question might be more appropriate in the ws-mailing list: how important is the use of rules in defining ws composition, when one considers the expressivity of languages such as DAML-S. Can someone clarify in laymens terminology these issues. Or am I missing something? Regards, Charlie All email is scanned by Keyworld against known Viruses. This service is offered to all Keyworld subscribers and hosted domains and does not carry any warranty. You are advised to protect your PC with updated antivirus software at all times.
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 11:12:09 UTC