Re: rule proto-proposal

From: pat hayes (
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>
>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.

I agree with that, sure.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

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