W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2006

Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited)

From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:59:26 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org

At 12:49 PM 2/8/2006 +0100, Francois Bry wrote:

>Peter has been right to state the following, I think:
>a. RIF should have a formal syntax.
>b. RIF should have a formal semantics.
>IMO, the following can be added:
>1. RIF's formal semantics might, and may be should, be more abstract than 
>those of existing processable rule languages. Eg making it possible to 
>express "negation as failure" without choosing between Stable Model and 
>Well-Founded semsntics.
>2. RIF could allow for rules the processing of which goes beyond what 
>currently is widespread. Eg rules with disjunctive conclusions.

Why? We do not need a rule language that covers any possible feature but 
one that covers 80% of the stuff
that is used and useful. Notice W3C is not about standardizing research and 
PhD topics but rather on well
-established stuff.

>3. One reason for not delivering RIF with (the specification of) a 
>processor is that a same rule can be used in different manners, each 
>requiring different processors. Eg a rule stating that "all members in the 
>RIF WG speak English" can be used for deriving that I speak English, ie 
>been used as a deduction/derivation rule, or for checking if the 
>requirement is enmfoprced, ie been unsed as an integrity constraint. In 
>many practical cases, it makes very much sense to import, say 
>deduction/derivation rules from a context/application A, and to use them 
>as integrity constrainbts in a context/application B.

This completely neglects the idea of defining (as a side effect) a useful 
rule language for the web.

Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/
Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8
Skype: dieterfensel
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 11:59:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:37 UTC