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

Re: [UCR] alternative Use case publication

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@uibk.ac.at>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:07:48 +0100
Message-ID: <440E1244.7090706@uibk.ac.at>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org

Michael Kifer wrote:
>>As per the action item given to me at today's telecom this use case is
>>now accessible at
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Candidate_Use_Cases_for_2nd_Draft/PublicationAlternative
>> 
>>
>>Allen
> 
> 
> The last section, on negation is empty and is kind of out of place in that
> use case.

I am not sure which "section on negation" you are referring to?!?

This shall be a simple use case on the use of implicit metadata via 
interlinked rule bases published on the Web and also the use of scoped 
negation in such a scenario. These are the two aspects I was missing
in the UCR document so far.

The need for RIF to define the exact interchange/interaction of such 
rulesbases manifests in the derived requirements:

1. Distributed rulesets on the Web shall provide means to decribe 
implicit interlinked metadata by rules.

2. Cyclic/Recursive dependencies of rulesets deserve special care which 
makes general interlinked rules more involved than simple one-way RDF 
data access via SPARQL.

3. Negation in queries needs to be explicitly scoped in order not to 
result in possibly unsound inferences due to incomplete information.

> There is quite a reasonable use case
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Scoped_negation%2C_Encapsulation
> which covers this issue.

  Whatever use case covers both abovementioned aspects is fine with me. 
I don't see how your proposed use case is any simpler/clearer with 
respect to what I aim at.

Do you propose two separate new use cases on these aspects?

best,
axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 23:08:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:27 GMT