Re: notes from today's JC telecon on rules roadmap and explicit equality and semantics

From: Mike Dean ([email protected])
Date: 06/30/03

  • Next message: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 1 July"
    > 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.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/30/03 EST