Re: rule proto-proposal

From: Dan Connolly (
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">

it follows from the DAML semantics that

	<rdfs:Class rdf:about="#XYZ">


So I hope we won't go out of our way to avoid allowing our rules
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

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