OWL reasoning in rules

Hi All --
As usual, Matt asks the good questions.
Actually, you can to a large extent have your expressiveness cake and eat
it.
The theory foundation for this is in the paper [1], and [2] is an overview.
As you may know, the underlying inference engine automatically combines
forward and back chaining in order to assign a non-procedural meaning to the
rules.
Some examples of reasoning over OWLish data are [3,4,5]. The example [6]
would be a good challenge for OWL. You are cordially invited to write and
run your own examples.
HTH, Cheers, -- Adrian
[1] Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is
Simple
 Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated
Reasoning, 11:1-22
[2]
ww.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf
[3] www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/OwlResearchOnt.agent
[4] www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/OwlTest1.agent
[5] www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/TransitiveOver1.agent
[6] www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/RelBioOntDefn3.agent
Internet Business Logic (R)
A Wiki for Executable Open Vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com Shared use is free
Adrian Walker
Reengineering