Re: OWL Rules proposal (fwd)

From: Ian Horrocks (
Date: 09/30/03

  • Next message: Benjamin Grosof: "expressiveness and evolution issues for Rules Lite, some implications for syntax too"
    On September 30, Mike Dean writes:
    > > > Is the previous (12 August?) version still available
    > > > somewhere.  I'd like to compare a couple things.
    > > 
    > > Yes, [1]. Nothing changed - we just added the XML syntax.
    > Thanks!  I hadn't remembered the distinction between
    > i-variables and d-variables, but now see that's not new.
    This is nothing more than an artifact the BNF designed to make it
    slightly easier to define the semantics (saves having to distinguish
    the cases in several places) - as you can see, they are not
    distinguished in the concrete syntax. I can easily change the BNF to
    eliminate the distinction at the cost of a more verbose semantics. 
    Of course using the same variable as an individual and a value would
    make the rule rather useless as there could never be a binding (given
    that the domains are disjoint).
    > 	Mike

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 09/30/03 EST