Re: rule proto-proposal

From: Frank van Harmelen (
Date: 06/05/01

I wrote:

> >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.
> why designing a language and cripple the scope when the broader language
> can do everything?

Stefan replied (in an off-line email):
> Transforming RDF provides the means for manipulating languages.
> Of course the rules that manipulate have to respect the semantics of the
> languages, but thats the responsibility of the rules author.

BIG DISAGREEMENT! I would expect DAML+OIL rules always to respect DAML+OIL semantics, ie: if S is some statement which I hold true, and R is a rule which I hold true, than the result of applying R to S is a conclusion which I must unavoidably regard as true. 

I wouldn't want DAML+OIL rules to be so flexible that authors could write rules for which the above didn't hold. If DAML+OIL rules would be "just" RDF transformation rules, authors could write such nonsensical (non-semantics respecting) rules. 

Stefan added:

> Not doing what I propose means the DAML+OIL rule language would be
> superfluous very shortly.

I think an RDF transformation rule and a DAML+OIL inference rule are two very different animals. We should be clear on which one we are breeding. 


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