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

RIFRAF and language taxonomy

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 22:08:04 -0400
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org (RIF WG)
Message-ID: <5170.1147745284@kiferserv.kiferhome.com>

I've used some of the RIFRAF classification to put together a preliminary
taxonomy of features that are of interest to the RIF.  While this pictorial
taxomony is much easier to grasp than the RIFRAF description, I realized
that drawing it is very hard because of the inevitable clutter.  I had to
omit a number of combinations of various features, which make sense both
semantically and syntactically. (This doesn't mean that RIF should endorse
all combos, but having a comprehensive diagram could be useful.)

I used 2 kinds of arrows. One denotes extensions that add expressive power
and one that doesn't. I avoided calling them "semantic" vs. "syntactic"
extensions, because these things are not well-defined.

In one case I used a third kind of arrow (extension of a sublanguage)
because I had to cut off a subset of Datalog that uses only binary and
unary predicates in order to reduce clutter (SWRL is sitting directly on
top of this).

I also tried to place various languages at their appropriate places in this

I was fuzzy about the "fuzzy" extensions, because there are several, and
also vague about what is meant by NAF (there are 2 most popular ones and
several others).

This is all very prelim and I am a bad diagram drawer. Hopefully someone
here is better at this. I am attaching a png, which can be used in any
browser; and SVG file, which can be edited and displayed in the browser
with an appropriate plugin (despite the claimed Firefox 1.5 support for
SVG, it can't display that one); and the source file for the DIA tool,
which I used to draw all that.


(image/png attachment: taxonomy.png)

Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 02:08:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:39 UTC