From: Ora Lassila (ora.lassila@nokia.com)
Date: 11/16/05
I have the same concerns, plus I worry that the more levels/layers/variants
we create, the more confusing this gets for most people (incompatibilities
or no incompatibilities).
- Ora
--
Ora Lassila mailto:ora.lassila@nokia.com http://www.lassila.org/
Research Fellow, Nokia Research Center / Boston
> From: "ext Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:26:58 -0500 (EST)
> To: <mdean@bbn.com>
> Cc: <joint-committee@daml.org>, <kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu>
> Subject: Re: SWRL levels
>
> 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 : 11/16/05 EST