From: Benjamin Grosof (bgrosof@mit.edu)
Date: 09/30/03
Hi folks, Here are some thoughts on expressiveness and evolution for Rules Lite. It's desirable as a design goal that we facilitate extensibility in the direction of full Description Logic and FOL beyond that. In particular, it's vital that we facilitate Rules Lite rules being combined expressively with OWL ontologies. It's vital as a design goal that we facilitate extensibility in the direction of LP with nonmon and procedural attachments. An implication is the following: We should have the Rules Lite language be layerable on top of OWL, rather than simply supersume OWL's expressiveness. This is because LP cannot handle all of even OWL-DL's expressiveness. E.g., the Rules Lite language can use properties/classes defined in OWL, but not have all of the expressiveness that OWL uses to define complex classes. We should strive to specify the expressive constructs, and associated syntactic constructs, of Rules Lite in terms that map cleanly/simply to those of OWL. Two important regards in which we need to add something are: - logical implication. E.g., specify such via a new RDF property - logical variables. E.g., specify such via a new RDF class Benjamin ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Prof. Benjamin Grosof Web Technologies for E-Commerce, Business Policies, E-Contracting, Rules, XML, Agents, Semantic Web Services MIT Sloan School of Management, Information Technology group http://ebusiness.mit.edu/bgrosof or http://www.mit.edu/~bgrosof
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 09/30/03 EST