The XML Concrete Syntax is a combination of the OWL Web Ontology Language XML Presentation Syntax with the RuleML XML syntax.
It is straightforward to provide such an RDF concrete syntax for rules, but the presence of variables in rules goes beyond the RDF Semantics.6 Translation from the XML Concrete Syntax to RDF/XML could be easily accomplished by extending the XSLT transformation for the OWL XML Presentation syntax.
Caveat: Reasoners do not support the full specification because the reasoning becomes undecidable. There can be three types of approach:
Description Logic Programs (DLPs) are another proposal for integrating rules and OWL.7 Compared with Description Logic Programs, SWRL takes a diametrically opposed integration approach. DLP is the intersection of Horn logic and OWL, whereas SWRL is (roughly) the union of them.8 In DLP, the resultant language is a very peculiar looking description logic and rather inexpressive language overall.9
As the Semantic Web continues to evolve, the role of SWRL in enabling automated reasoning and decision-making processes will likely expand. While current implementations, such as those found in Protégé and Pellet, provide significant capabilities, ongoing advancements in artificial intelligence and knowledge representation may lead to even more sophisticated reasoning engines that better handle the computational complexities introduced by SWRL. Furthermore, as data integration across diverse domains becomes increasingly critical, SWRL could play a pivotal role in enhancing interoperability between systems that utilize OWL ontologies. The combination of rules with ontologies, as facilitated by SWRL, remains a powerful mechanism for drawing inferences and uncovering relationships in large, distributed datasets, offering broad applicability in fields such as healthcare, finance, and semantic data analytics.10
Horrocks, Ian; Patel-Schneider, Peter F.; Boley, Harold; Tabet, Said; Grosof, Benjamin; Dean, Mike (21 May 2004). "SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML". W3C. Retrieved 21 December 2017. https://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/ ↩
Ian Horrocks; Peter F. Patel-Schneider (2004). "A Proposal for an OWL Rules Language" (PDF). Proc. of the Thirteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004). ACM. pp. 723–731. Retrieved 22 May 2014. http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/ian.horrocks/Publications/download/2004/HoPa04a.pdf ↩
Ian Horrocks; Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Sean Bechhofer; Dmitry Tsarkov (2005). "OWL Rules: A Proposal and Prototype Implementation" (PDF). Journal of Web Semantics. 3 (1). Elsevier: 23–40. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2005.05.003. Retrieved 22 May 2014. http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/ian.horrocks/Publications/download/2005/HPBT05.pdf ↩
Bijan Parsia; et al. (2005). "Cautiously Approaching SWRL" (PDF). Retrieved 29 July 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~gweddell/cs848/SWRL_Parsia_et_al.pdf ↩
Boris Motik; Ulrike Sattler; Rudi Studer (2005). "Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules" (PDF). Journal of Web Semantics. 3 (1). Elsevier: 41–60. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2005.05.001. Retrieved 22 May 2014. http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/boris.motik/pubs/mss05query-journal.pdf ↩
Mei, Jing; Harold Boley (2006). "Interpreting SWRL Rules in RDF Graphs" (PDF). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. 151 (2). Elsevier: 53–69. doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2005.07.036. S2CID 14325289. Retrieved 29 July 2006. http://www.is.pku.edu.cn/~mayyam/papers/Interpreting%20SWRL%20Rules%20in%20RDF%20Graphs.pdf ↩
Benjamin N. Grosof; Ian Horrocks; Raphael Volz; Stefan Decker (2003). "Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic" (PDF). Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003). ACM. pp. 48–57. Retrieved 22 May 2014. http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/ian.horrocks/Publications/download/2003/p117-grosof.pdf ↩
"OWL - Semantic Web Standards". www.w3.org. Retrieved 13 September 2024. https://www.w3.org/OWL/ ↩