From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 06/01/01
Frank van Harmelen wrote: [...] > 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. Yes, but DAML+OIL gives a certain sort of semantics to arbitrary RDF... conjunctive semantics, right? e.g. given <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#XYZ"> <my:color>blue</my:color> <my:shape>square</my:shape> </rdfs:Class> it follows from the DAML semantics that <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#XYZ"> <my:color>blue</my:color> </rdfs:Class> right? So I hope we won't go out of our way to avoid allowing our rules language to be a rules language for arbitrary ground facts; i.e. arbitrary RDF; it's likely to be simpler than doing something DAML-specific. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST