From: Sandro Hawke ([email protected])
Date: 11/13/02
> Well, ignoring the Skolem function issue for a moment, the 'existential-
> conjunctive' power of RDF triples will also move RDF rules to a more
> expressive position in the sublanguage hierarchy. But again, 'simulating'
> Skolem functions by existentially quantified variables at the same time
> puts us into a FOL with equality.
How are you getting from RDF to disjunction and negation...?
> > Puting it under
> > datalog makes RDF rules fit nicely in your hierarchy, but it gives us
> > a less powerful system than we (cwm/n3 users at least) want.
>
> "RDF rules" is a much less well-defined term than "RDF triples", and in
> RuleML we are happy to reclassify RDF rules into the most appropriate
> position in the hierarchy once we understand them better.
Good. :-)
> As I hinted at in a different thread, it should be helpful to exchange
> our experience with rule engines such as cwm/n3 and Mandarax/RuleML or
> j-DREW/RuleML.
What would you suggest? Our cwm/n3 work is all in a public cvs
repository, but it hasn't been properly written up. We're still
trying to understand what aspects of it are novel and/or useful. Do
you have ideas for a process that might work here?
-- sandro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/13/02 EST