Re: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR

And I thought the chairs closed this thread. Oh well.

On May 30, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Vincent, Paul D wrote:

> I think the point being made here is that although "widespread  
> adoption"
> may be a CSF, it entails adoption by groups other than those  
> represented
> here on the WG (eg 1000+ vendors' customers for production rule
> systems).

I know the point *I* made was that *my* groups' interests are only  
marginally affected by the RIF being adopted by 1000+ PR customers.  
The people *I'm* trying to sell (either for money, or as research  
partners, or whatever) RIF or rule systems to are not using PRs and  
couldn't care less about interchange with PR systems. *Why* is this  
controversial or hard to understand?

> Off topic: I went to a meeting last week where a content mgmt vendor
> (who supports RDF output for his product) gave a presentation on the
> Semantic Web and why it was failing to be adopted (/failing to be
> adopted faster). RIF was given as an example of W3C creating standards
> out of thin air rather than standardising what was used  
> commercially. Ho
> hum!

Frankly, I find that semweb adoption is going at a good, indeed,  
appropriate pace. I often don't *want* it to grow faster, because  
growth that outstripped sense is often not worth it.
Plus, there are different strategies one can take. For example, I'd  
love to take away customers away from you :) One way is to build what  
they've already seen (i.e., something compatible). Another way is to  
build something different that yet seems attractive, indeed,  
attractive enough to entice them away.

Again, I don't see why my failing to fall in with *your* strategies  
entails that I'm being wrong, silly, or acting against the "good of  
the RIF". I don't ask what I can do for the RIF, I ask what the RIF  
can do for me. In point of fact, so do you, but it would make the  
conversation easier if you wouldn't *identify* what the RIF can do  
for you with what I should care about. Since we have *different*  
interests, we have to horse trade. But if you try this sort of  
moralistic bullying, then reaching *fruitful* compromise is much harder.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 08:28:14 UTC