SWRL has much nicer RDF representation than RIF, so that might also be an alternative, though the expressiveness might vary.
Best, Jiri Prochazka On 04/08/2010 10:16 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2010, at 14:45 , Dan Brickley wrote: > >> A guideline might be: >> >> "As typing information become broader and more inclusive, they also >> become less informative: to know that something is a "Thing" is rarely >> useful. It is difficult to say whether a class is at a useful level of >> specificity without taking into account other datasets, tools and >> services that use it, however an intuitive grasp of "mid-level" >> concepts often provides useful guidance. In addition, Linked Data apps >> have a particular concern for cross-referencing information about >> specific things, it is therefore often useful to include inferred >> identifiers (owl:sameAs etc) based on analysis of properties >> (owl:FunctionalProperty, owl:InverseFunctionalProperty) etc" >> >> Ok that's not very friendly text but hope it might be useful. >> Basically "rdf:type owl:Thing" is boring, but "owl:sameAs x:anotherID" >> is very useful... >> > > I am a little bit concerned by the open-endedness of this. As an information > consumer I would like to have at least some information or hints as for which > inferences are materialized and which are not. > > As a thought experiment: what about providing a set of RIF (Core) rules that > describe which inferences are materialized? It is possible to express RDFS as > well as OWL-RL via RIF rules and, what is even more important in this > context, any subsets thereof. Human clients may look at those rules and, with > little training, may understand what is happening for the simpler cases; > after all, many publisher will decide to use 2-3 rules only (eg, subproperty > and subclass inferences). Machine clients may even choose to instantiate the > inferences themselves with some local rule engine if their CPU/bandwidth > ratio makes that more attractive. > > I know, the current RIF syntax is not all that beautiful (but I would hope > that alternative syntaxes will come to the fore, mainly if the demand is > there) and I am not sure whether rule engines, bound to RDF environments > (like Jena Rules or Fuxi) already implement RIF Core (although I believe/hope > they would). But that seems to be a possible way to go nevertheless... > > Ivan > > (To avoid misunderstanding: with his W3C Position's hat down:-) > > >> cheers, >> >> Dan >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
