RE: SWRL levels

From: Mike Dean ([email protected])
Date: 11/17/05

Next message: Sandro Hawke: "Re: SWRL levels"

Previous message: Mike Dean: "RE: SWRL levels"
In reply to: Frank van Harmelen: "Re: SWRL levels"
Next in thread: Mike Dean: "RE: SWRL levels"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> I remember well the uphill battle we had to convince the W3C staff
> (including Tim) that we wanted different flavours of OWL (well, some of
> us, anyway:-). I would be surprised if they were now open to a whole
> stack of rule-language varieties?

My primary intent was to show that the constructs of SWRL could be applied
at each level of the current Semantic Web stack, rather than to introduce
additional stratification.  A number of people currently dismiss SWRL out of
hand because the current specification includes OWL.

It may also be useful to think about an additional level between SWRL RDFS
and SWRL DLP that corresponds to Carin (ALCN R?).

	Mike

Next message: Sandro Hawke: "Re: SWRL levels"
Previous message: Mike Dean: "RE: SWRL levels"
In reply to: Frank van Harmelen: "Re: SWRL levels"
Next in thread: Mike Dean: "RE: SWRL levels"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/17/05 EST