Re: notes by Benjamin from today's JC telecon on Rules Lite requirements, expressiveness, work items, action plans, schedule

From: Frank van Harmelen (Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl)
Date: 08/08/03

  • Next message: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon today 12 August" 
    Although silent until now, I have been following the exchanges in the 
background.
I simply wanted to express my strong support for the Rules Lite approach:

> - binary Horn FOL with possibly further restrictions
> - plus warning label -- which is important to state clearly and precisely

Also:

> - whether to allow limited procedural attachments (especially, simple 
sensors);
- whether to allow logical functions, vs. impose the Datalog
> restriction; and
> - whether to allow both unordered argument collections, vs. only ordered
> In the interests of simplicity, our very first version might
> omit these features.

I would indeed strongly suggest to go for the simple option in all these 
cases. I think the community would be very well served by such a Rules Lite 
extension of OWL.

Frank.
   ----

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 08/10/03 EST