From: Frank van Harmelen (Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl)
Date: 06/01/01
Stefan wrote: > >My minimal requirements for a horn logic based language: > >1) The rule language should to able to XXXX RDF > > ( choose XXXX from { process, transform, reason with, .... ) Pat answered: > Well, we are designing a rule language for DAML, not RDF; and I have > been thinking (along with Peter) of the rules as being for drawing > conclusions, not for processing or transforming. In other words, I > don't see this as a programming language. > > Maybe we should ask for a broader expression of views on this matter. > If some of us are thinking of rules as things that DO things, and > others of rules as things that involve reasoning, then we are almost > certainly going to be steering in different directions. This is a crucial point (and perhaps one underlying much of the debate). In my view we are >*not*< designing language for tranformation-rules for RDF (ie, we are not doing the XSLT equivalent for RDF). Perhaps somebody should, but it's not us. Instead, we are designing a language 1. that draws conclusions (and not one that makes transformations), 2. for DAML+OIL (and not for arbitrary RDF). that is: rules which logical conclusions that are sanctioned by the semantics of DAML+OIL. I thought we had concluded as much during last weeks' teleconf? Frank. ----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST