From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 11/16/05
On 15 Nov 2005, at 19:26, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. I agree - and my worries were not at all relieved by talk of "interlocking" languages, whatever that means. Ian > > 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 : 11/16/05 EST