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

Re: proposal for resolving deadlock

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:28:05 -0500
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <18394.1197523685@cs.sunysb.edu>


It is part of the RIF framework (one of the documents into which the
current BLD is being split). Briefly described in
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/FLD/Overview
(but is not called "a profile mechanism" there).
Should be expanded, but probably in the (new) BLD document.


	--michael  

> 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 05:29:20 GMT

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