- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:40:03 -0500
- To: Sheila McIlraith <sam@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
- Cc: <sheila@cs.toronto.edu>, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
On Dec 28, 2003, at 1:44 PM, Sheila McIlraith wrote: > Thanks for the response. One of the objectives of this post was > to get a clear statement from someone developing SWRL regarding: > - what extra expressivity was required in order to encode a typical > situation calculus axiomatization > - was it possible to extend the language. The latter question is a bit off. Of course, it's possible to extend the language in the technical sense. I think what we need to know is whether *the extensions we need* are likely candidates to be rolled into an actual SWRL release, so we can build on that common base. > As you note, function symbols are one necessary extension. My current list, from observation now has biconditionals and function symbols. Anything else? > And to reiterate your question, is SWRL meant "to be an open-ended > framework, or a notation nailed to a rigid OWL frame?" My understanding from the presentations et al, is that the OWL Rules proposal was meant to be a minimal extension to owl to allow rule like things, and let any further additions be audience driven. It's also designed to be an extension of OWL, so as to build upon (future) OWL experience and infrastructure. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 28 December 2003 14:40:53 UTC