- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:36:38 +0000
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Jim Hendler wrote: > At 10:00 +0000 2/21/06, Dave Reynolds wrote: > >Now the WG could decide that this desire for a side-effect is in > conflict with the main goal, that the group should only be about rule > exchange and have no regard to the possibility of a semantic web rule > language. That would be just fine and would simplify my life considerably. > > > > I don't understand, the notion of a Sem Web rule language is okay with > me, but that isn't the same as what you said above In that case I'm either not being clear (as usual) or mis-understanding what you mean by sem web rule language or, probably, both. I'm not sure I see the difference between what I'm asking for and the first use case in section 1.1 of the WG charter. > I was primarily using "web rule" to mean a syntactic standard for > representing rules in one of the major Web languages and explicitly > grounded in URI space - I generally use "Web ?x" to mean ?x being > webized as in [1] So a rule language, with an XML serialization, in which all predicate symbols were URIs, which runs over data expressed in RDF (so variables get bound to RDF resources) and which can conclude RDF statements ... would that automatically be classifiable as a "web rule" language or would there need to be some deeper webization to qualify? Dave
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 18:39:33 UTC