From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 11/15/05
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" <[email protected]> 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 : 11/15/05 EST