- From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:59:18 -0500
- To: "'Ian Horrocks'" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
FYI, Looks like the rdf examples are broken in the second doc you referenced. I believe e.g: <owlr:argument1 rdf:about="#_y" /> should be: <owlr:argument1 rdf:resource="#_y" /> Also, IMHO, might be a good idea to follow usual conventions wrt capitalization of class names - e.g. use <owlr:ClassAtom> instead of <owlr:classAtom>. It's nice to see some movement on the rules front. regards, Geoff Chappell > -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 5:44 AM > To: Graham Klyne > Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org > Subject: Re: Examples of OWL used for datatype inferencing? > > > OWL's datatype support is currently fairly rudimentry and does not > include any means of expressing the kinds of knowledge you > describe. One way to do so, while still maintaining decidability (for > OWL DL at least) would be to extend the language with n-ary datatype > predicates (see, e.g., [1]). Another way would be to include > arithmetic built-ins in an expressive extension such as horn rules > (see, e.g., [2]), but this would almost certainly make the language > undecidable. > > Ian > > [1] > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/PaHo03a.pdf > [2] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML/Rules/ > >
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 09:03:23 UTC