Hi All --
I have been reading with great interest Ian Horrocks' excellent proposal
for OWL Rules,
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML/Rules/
, in which he gives a model theory for the meanings of collections of
rules.
Ian writes:
"Rules have variables, so treating them as a semantic
extension of
RDF is very difficult. It is, however, still possible to
provide an
RDF syntax for rules---it is just that the semantics of the
resultant
RDF graphs will not be an extension of the RDF
Semantics."
To a mere an outside observer of a major project like OWL/RDF, this looks
kind of strange.
It brings to mind some questions:
Why have RDF do any inferencing at all?
Should RDF in future be restricted just a passive data representation
?
Is it just a distraction to try add the limited inferencing currently
posited for RDF itself, since it looks to be incompatible with useful
inference-based Semantic Web applications ?
Or, have I missed something here ? Thanks in advance for
your comments.
-- Adrian
INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC
Business Intelligence Rules in English + Semantic Data Integration + Your
Oracle Databases
www.reengineeringllc.com
Dr. Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA
Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell: USA 860 830 2085
Fax: USA 860 314 1029