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

From: Frank van Harmelen (
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 
    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
    > - whether to allow limited procedural attachments (especially, simple 
    - 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.

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