Re: rule proto-proposal

From: Frank van Harmelen (
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? 


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST