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

RE: comments on RIF: important, needed, next steps

From: Benjamin Grosof <BenjaminG@vulcan.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:22:30 -0700
To: 'Chris Welty' <cawelty@gmail.com>
CC: "'public-rif-comments@w3.org'" <public-rif-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC28F43ED4708D489ABCF68D06D7F5560300DF18BF@505DENALI.corp.vnw.com>
Hi Chris and all,

Thanks for the response, I am satisfied with it.

Benjamin 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Welty [mailto:cawelty@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 6:34 AM
>To: Benjamin Grosof
>Cc: 'public-rif-comments@w3.org'
>Subject: Re: comments on RIF: important, needed, next steps
>
>Thanks for the comments, Ben.
>
>While the RIF WG has no specific plans to create new dialects, 
>we do seek 
>"implementations" of FLD in the form of new dialect 
>definitions that use it.
>
>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 
>comment.
>
>-The RIF WG
>
>Benjamin Grosof wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Some comments on RIF are below.
> >
> > The current specification(s) and associated documents are a 
>good job overall.
> > Let's keep up the steam in the home stretch.
> >
> > More salient is that this initial step of RIF 
>BLD/Core/PRD/FLD is important.
> > It is needed by industry, research, and the web overall.
> > It is a  key step on the road to reduce fragmentation in 
>the business rule 
>industry and
> > semantic web/technology industry, and to have a number of 
>benefits for customers.
> > See [3] for an industry roadmap analysis I did a couple 
>years ago on this topic.
> >
> > After RIF becomes a Recommendation, there is more work to 
>be done under the 
>extensibility
> > framework (FLD) especially.
> >
> > PRD is a good initial step but essentially has a procedural 
>operational 
>semantics rather
> > than declarative model-theoretic semantics, thus is
> > not "fully" semantic in that sense and does not support 
>interoperability 
>nearly as
> > satisfactorily as logic dialects/approaches that do have such.
> >
> > Notably needed in extensions (i.e., new logic dialects) 
>under FLD are two 
>kinds of expressive features:
> >
> > 1. nonmonotonicity -- default negation, and then more 
>expressive defaults.
> >
> > 2. actions -- conclusion-triggered external procedurally 
>attached actions, 
>and then events too,
> > similar to those  in production rules and 
>Event-Condition-Action rules .
> >
> > In terms of "80-20" kinds of thinking, "80" percent of 
>current and potential
> > commercial applications in the business rules and semantic 
>technology sectors 
>need nonmonotonicity and/or actions.
> >
> > These two features were identified as high priority at the 
>time the Working 
>Group was being chartered,
> > but have  not yet been incorporated into the Logic Dialects
> > that are detailed in the current RIF specifications.
> >
> > Much of the basis for such extensions under FLD is available in 
>standardization-oriented KR
> > semantic rule designs  such as RuleML [1] and SILK [2].
> > These do have fully declarative, model-theoretic semantics.
> >
> > Indeed, the SILK effort by the group I lead at Vulcan is 
>currently developing 
>some such extensions,
> > with contractor partners that include BBN Technologies, Stony Brook 
>University, and others.
> >
> > All that awaits is to get the current RIF stuff, done by 
>the Working Group, 
>out as an actual Recommendation.
> >
> > I think we should all be looking forward to that.
> > Relative quiet on the public comments etc. mailing lists 
>mainly indicates 
>lack of controversy, in my view.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >    --Benjamin
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.ruleml.org
> >
> > [2] http://silk.semwebcentral.org
> >
> > [3] http://www.mit.edu/~bgrosof/#EBRC2007Talk
>
>
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 17:23:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 28 August 2009 17:23:29 GMT