Ups, you're right - I'm always forgetting that not every submission finally made it to a recommendation.
Thanks, for correction. Cheers, Lorenz On 16.07.2017 22:51, Dave Reynolds wrote: > Um. SWRL is not a W3C recommendation. > > It was a submission as one of the inputs to RIF but that's not at all > the same thing and RIF is in no way SWRL. > > Dave > > > On 14/07/2017 15:09, Lorenz Buehmann wrote: >> Are you sure that you can achieve the same? >> >> >> some points regarding SWRL: >> >> * W3C recommendation >> >> * OWL-based rule language, i.e. rules are part of the OWL ontology in >> forms of OWL axioms >> >> * Open World Assumption >> >> * built on the same description logic foundation as OWL >> >> * deductive reasoning >> >> * reasoning in SWRL is undecidable (thus, most reasoner limit the >> supported SWRL features to remain decidability) >> >> * no negation as failure >> >> * similar to OWL no non-monotonic inference >> >> * no disjunction of atoms >> >> >> >> >> On 14.07.2017 13:02, tina sani wrote: >>> Usually we achieve the same result with Jena rules we achieve using >>> SWRL >>> rules. So is there any advantage of using one on another? Second, >>> can we >>> use both SWRL rules along side the Jena rules in our Semantic web >>> application(s)? >>> >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus >
