Re: Updated: CONCRETE SYNTAX FOR RULES LITE

From: Mike Dean ([email protected])
Date: 09/16/03

  • Next message: Mike Dean: "Re: Updated: CONCRETE SYNTAX FOR RULES LITE" 
    >   <imp>
>     <_head>
>       <atom>
>         <_opr>has as part</_opr>
>         <var>x</var>
>         <var>z</var>
>       </atom>
>     </_head>
>     <_body>
>       <atom>
>         <_opr>has as part</_opr>
>         <var>x</var>
>         <var>y</var>
>       </atom>
>       <atom>
>         <_opr>has as part</_opr>
>         <var>y</var>
>         <var>z</var>
>       </atom>
>     </_body>
>   </imp>
> 
>   <imp>
>     <_head>
>       <atom>
>         <_opr>flanks</_opr>
>         <var>x</var>
>         <var>y</var>
>       </atom>
>     </_head>
>     <_body>
>       <atom>
>         <_opr>flanked by</_opr>
>         <var>y</var>
>         <var>x</var>
>       </atom>
>     </_body>
>   </imp>

As far as I can tell, the example rules just say that
hasAsPart is transitive and flanks is the inverse of
flankedBy, which we can already say directly in OWL.  It
would be preferable to show examples (such as property
chaining) where the rule language extends/complements the
ontology language.

A presentation issue:  I'm not familiar with the name
Oceanic to refers to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and
neither www.google.com nor www.webster.com yielded much.  Is
this concept familiar to other folks?

Thanks!

	Mike

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 09/16/03 EST