W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Comment on RIF-PRD

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:35:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4A97DD19.7070903@gmail.com>
To: Tom Gordon <thomas.gordon@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
CC: public-rif-comments@w3.org

Thanks for the feedback. Regarding your final comment, the existing RIF 
specification for externals *is* a general and extensible method for attaching 
procedures, which could be builtins or be defined using existing programming 
languages. See FLD Section 2.4 item number 8:

[External] terms are used for representing built-in functions and predicates as 
well as
"procedurally attached" terms or predicates, which might exist in various 
rule-based systems,
but are not specified by RIF.

DTB is a list of externals that are *required* for interoperability, but does 
not preclude defining others.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-rif-comments@w3.org> 
(replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us 
know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your 


Tom Gordon wrote:
 > The time is ripe for a W3C standard for rules and RIF looks to me to be
 > a very good proposal, building on the experience of previous work on
 > SWRL and RuleML, among other initiatives.   I particularly like its
 > modular structure and its extensibility using FLD.  It remains to be
 > seen whether FLD will be expressive enough for requirements in the legal
 > domain, for defining a dialect capable of modeling legislation in an
 > "isomorphic" way, which is important for both validating and maintaining
 > the models.  In a three year European project, ESTRELLA, which ended in
 > 2008, we developed a rule interchange language for models of
 > legislation, called the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF)
 > expressly for this purpose. We may have built LKIF on top of RIF had it
 > been available at the time.  It may be an interesting task to see if
 > LKIF could be reconstructed as a RIF dialect using FLD.
 > One nitpick:  RIF, like SWRL before it,  define a bunch of "builtin"
 > predicate and function symbols.   I would have much preferred a more
 > general and extensible method for attaching procedures, defined using
 > existing programming langauges.
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 13:36:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:49:19 UTC