From: pat hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
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. I agree with that, sure. Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST