Re: notes from today's JC telecon on rules roadmap and explicit equality and semantics

From: Mike Dean (mdean@bbn.com)
Date: 06/30/03

Next message: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 1 July"

Previous message: Mike Dean: "additional rule requirements/objectives"
In reply to: Benjamin Grosof: "notes from today's JC telecon on rules roadmap and explicit equality and semantics"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> Ian: are we designing (1) a rule extension to OWL/DAML+OIL (say OWL-DL)
> or designing (2) a
> rule language that is compatible/overlapping with OWL/DAML+OIL?

It occurs to me that the many users who are expected to want
to use a rule-based tool like JESS or cwm in a
"straightforward" way to process OWL DL content will
implicitly be limited to DLP semantics (the intersection of
DL and Horn).  I think this is fine, as long as it's a
limitation of the tool rather than the language.

DAML/OWL Rules could then presumably extend the
expressibility to include all of Horn LP.

	Mike

Next message: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 1 July"
Previous message: Mike Dean: "additional rule requirements/objectives"
In reply to: Benjamin Grosof: "notes from today's JC telecon on rules roadmap and explicit equality and semantics"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/30/03 EST