- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:41:29 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Dan Connolly writes:
>
> "This syntax extends the abstract syntax of OWL".
>
> Why?
>
> I was expecting plain old horn rules. I don't see
> why all the terms and structures from OWL-DL are
> carried into SWRL.
>
I can't speak for everyone on the committee, but I went along with
this because (1) it's important that the rule language be usable in
concert with OWL, and (2) several members of the JC were skeptical
that a rule language can be specified orthogonal to OWL and then
combined with it, while maintaining the proper semantics and desired
reasoner performance characteristics. I think the sense was that such
orthogonality "might be nice" or even "would be nice", but until the
details can be worked out, this 0.5 version seemed like a good
waypoint. A future language with orthogonality should be able to be
compatible with this one, so letting folks begin coding to 0.5 seems
reasonable.
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2003 01:44:19 UTC