Re: Updated: CONCRETE SYNTAX FOR RULES LITE

From: Mike Dean (mdean@bbn.com)
Date: 09/16/03

  • Next message: Mike Dean: "Re: Updated: CONCRETE SYNTAX FOR RULES LITE"
    >   <imp>
    >     <_head>
    >       <atom>
    >         <_opr>has as part</_opr>
    >         <var>x</var>
    >         <var>z</var>
    >       </atom>
    >     </_head>
    >     <_body>
    >       <atom>
    >         <_opr>has as part</_opr>
    >         <var>x</var>
    >         <var>y</var>
    >       </atom>
    >       <atom>
    >         <_opr>has as part</_opr>
    >         <var>y</var>
    >         <var>z</var>
    >       </atom>
    >     </_body>
    >   </imp>
    > 
    >   <imp>
    >     <_head>
    >       <atom>
    >         <_opr>flanks</_opr>
    >         <var>x</var>
    >         <var>y</var>
    >       </atom>
    >     </_head>
    >     <_body>
    >       <atom>
    >         <_opr>flanked by</_opr>
    >         <var>y</var>
    >         <var>x</var>
    >       </atom>
    >     </_body>
    >   </imp>
    
    As far as I can tell, the example rules just say that
    hasAsPart is transitive and flanks is the inverse of
    flankedBy, which we can already say directly in OWL.  It
    would be preferable to show examples (such as property
    chaining) where the rule language extends/complements the
    ontology language.
    
    A presentation issue:  I'm not familiar with the name
    Oceanic to refers to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and
    neither www.google.com nor www.webster.com yielded much.  Is
    this concept familiar to other folks?
    
    Thanks!
    
    	Mike
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 09/16/03 EST