Re: SWRL levels

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 11/15/05

  • Next message: miki: "$BK\Ev$K9%$-$G$9$+!)(B"
    I worry that Tim's view is tending towards a Tower of Babel, i.e., different
    languages that *do not* work together because they make different underlying
    assumptions.
    
    peter
    
    
    
    From: "Mike Dean" <mdean@bbn.com>
    Subject: SWRL levels
    Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:58:02 -0500
    
    > It occurred to me that the "two towers" (ontologies and rules) may share
    > many floors and that many users may prefer to stay within the common base
    > (for fear of heights or other reasons).  I think this is the focus of [1]
    > from Tim's ISWC2005 keynote.
    > 
    > To help with this, I think it may be useful to identify additional levels of
    > SWRL and offer the following starting definitions:
    > 
    > SWRL RDF
    > 
    >   individualPropertyAtom and datavaluedPropertyAtom (property is just 
    >   rdf:Property), builtinAtom
    > 
    > SWRL RDFS
    > 
    >   classAtom (named classes only), datarangeAtom, individualPropertyAtom, 
    >   datavaluedPropertyAtom, builtinAtom
    > 
    > SWRL DLP
    > 
    >   current SWRL Member Submission restricted to DLP limitations
    > 
    > SWRL Lite
    > 
    >   current SWRL Member Submission restricted to OWL Lite limitations
    > 
    > SWRL DL
    > 
    >   current SWRL Member Submission (OWL DL semantics)
    > 
    > SWRL Full
    > 
    >   current SWRL Member Submission with OWL Full semantics
    > 
    > SWRL FOL
    > 
    >   current SWRL FOL Member Submission
    > 
    > SWRL RDF, SWRL RDFS, and SWRL DLP are in the common base.
    > 
    > Thoughts?
    > 
    > 	Mike
    > 
    > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/1110-iswc-tbl/#[12]
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/15/05 EST