Re: [CL] SWRL first-order logic
Pat,
I sympathize. I'm sure that we have all compromised
our standards from time to time for such mundane
perks as a paycheck.
> I know, Im on the committee that did it (for my sins). But
> (1) It was *required* to have an XML syntax
> (2) it was politically necessary that it be as consistent with RuleML
> syntax as possible, and compatible with RDF/OWL syntax, and to provide
> links to these notations
> (3) it is only a subset of FOL (at most binary relations, for
> example), and it is strongly typed; so it is not a serious rival to
> the SCL/CG/KIF family in any case.
Actually, it may be politically useful to claim SWRL FOL as
the *official* XML-ified version of SCL. The restriction
to binary relations could be removed (as an option) and
the types could also be optional. That would make SCL XML
a superset of SWRL FOL for anybody who might want it.
I have no objection to letting other people use such
notations if they so desire, as long as I am not required
to use them, see them, or even think about them.
John