From: Mike Dean ([email protected])
Date: 06/30/03
> Ian: are we designing (1) a rule extension to OWL/DAML+OIL (say OWL-DL) > or designing (2) a > rule language that is compatible/overlapping with OWL/DAML+OIL? It occurs to me that the many users who are expected to want to use a rule-based tool like JESS or cwm in a "straightforward" way to process OWL DL content will implicitly be limited to DLP semantics (the intersection of DL and Horn). I think this is fine, as long as it's a limitation of the tool rather than the language. DAML/OWL Rules could then presumably extend the expressibility to include all of Horn LP. Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/30/03 EST