W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: proposal for resolving deadlock

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:32:59 -0500
Message-ID: <4760A7EB.1090308@gmail.com>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


Michael,

Where can we find a description of this "profile mechanism" you refer to?

-Chris


Michael Kifer wrote:
> Gang:
> 
> We have been deadlocked on a number of issues, including class hierarchies,
> equality, named arguments in predicates, with no end in sight.  We have
> wasted a lot of time in email conversations and F2Faces and still have not
> reached a solution.
> 
> We need to move on with our work, so let me reiterate in a more articulate
> form what I believe is a way out of this deadlock.
> 
> 1. Define BLD to include the features that make technical sense (free of
>    political considerations). This should include everything that we have
>    right now: equality, frames, classification, slotted terms.
> 
>    This dialect makes perfect sense not only technically but also
>    pragmatically. One feature (equality) is a bit challenging to implement,
>    but not insurmountable.
> 
> 2. Use the profile mechanism to define the core and other dialects (if
>    necessary).
> 
>    I already explained that profiles give us a simple mechanism to define
>    subdialects. The dual approach advocated by some people, i.e.,
>    developing an extensibility mechanism, is currently pie in-the-sky. It
>    is a research issue, which is very interesting, but we have nothing
>    concrete and we should not base our decisions on a **very remote** (IMO)
>    possibility that a useful extensibility mechanism will become available
>    in the future.
> 
> 3. The CORE would be essentially a Datalog profile of BLD, plus or minus.
>     - not sure if function symbols will be allowed (I think yes)
>     - no equality
>     - no slotted predicates/functions
>     - frames? Do not know - either way is fine
>     - classification: I am fine with not including it in the core
>     - this minus function symbols is also probably acceptable as a core of PRD
> 
> 
> Benefits:
>    - it is technically well-founded
>    - accommodates most of the preferences, which were expressed by the
>      various people in this group
>    - once these issues are off the table, we will be able to
>       o save a lot of time
>       o our telecons will become shorter
>       o we will be able to accomplish much more during our face-2-faces
>       o we will be able to move on and think about cool stuff like
>       	extensibility, modules, OWL compatibility.
>       o we will be friends again :-)
> 
> Drawbacks:
>    - none that I can see
> 
> 
> Am I too naive to think that this is acceptable to everyone?
> 
> 
> 	--michael
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 03:33:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:44 GMT