Hi Adrian, > ok great, as I said I'm more than willing to contribute my findings to > the documentation as well. Can you point me to the correct files? I will > add stuff and send you a patch when I figured everything out and > documented some more things.
you can find the latest documentation about rules here [1]. Probably you are more interested about REST docs. [2] and [3] should help. > Please let me know when you documented more, I'm trying to finish the > demo for my early adopter proposal and I should start hurry up a bit ;) > I promised a first demo mid next week. I have just added some new parts in the documentation about rules :) > If I get that correctly the SWRL rules get transformed in a SPARQL > CONSTRUCT statement and executed like this. So my question is can I also > add a SPARQL CONSTRUCT rule instead of a SWRL rule to the POST request? Right now we don't have any subcomponent in Rules able to accept SPARQL CONSTRUCTS as rules. I think that it could be not so hard to design and implement one for SPARQL 1.0. I understand that it would be very helpful. One comment is that the general idea behind Stanbol Rules is to have an abstract syntax for expressing axioms as rules and then to adapt them to concrete rule engine implementation, e.g., Jena, Hermit, Pellet, SPARQL CONSTRUCT, etc. Hence, the mapping direction is from Stanbol Rules to concrete rule implementations. For example, every Stanbol Rule is a valid Jena Rule, but the inverse is not always true. Coming back to CONSTRUCTs, SPARQL 1.1 is much more expressive than Stanbol Rules in a way that it would be hard to adapt SPARQL 1.1 CONSTRUCTs to rules in Stanbol. Andrea [1] http://stanbol.staging.apache.org/stanbol/docs/trunk/components/rules/ [2] http://stanbol.staging.apache.org/stanbol/docs/trunk/components/rules/store.html [3] http://stanbol.staging.apache.org/stanbol/docs/trunk/components/rules/refactor.html
