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

Re: proposal for resolving deadlock

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:56:55 +0100
Message-ID: <4767DFB7.7090902@ilog.fr>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> There were difference points of view on what does it mean to "implement" a
> dialect. [...]
> 
> You are opening up another Pandora box, and if this group keeps doing this
> we will never have anything done (and I will have no time to write).  From
> the theoretical point of view, for an interchange format we do not need
> anything more than plain predicates.  So, now you are opening the door for
> further endless arguing about the features that "make sense" (whatever this
> means) in an interchange format and those that do not.

Well, I did not open the Pandora box of how we should scope the feature 
set of a limited number of RIF dialect to optimize their coverage of 
rule languages [1]: I mean, that Pandora box is kind of intrinsic to the 
idea of a RIF with a limited number of dialects (at least as I 
understand it).

Actually, I rather tried to close the Pandora box of designing a (set 
of) new rule language(s) for the Semantic Web and refocus us on rule 
interchange, at least as far as the basic dialects and phase 1 are 
concerned.

Nothing new, here: I have been trying to do that ever since that working 
group started 2 years ago. With unequal success, I fear.

Christian

[1] that is, to maximize the set of rule languages  such that, for each 
of them, there exists at least one standard dialect to/from which enough 
of the rulesets that can be expressed in that rule language can be 
translated for the said dialect to be of practical use as an interchange 
format.
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 14:56:25 GMT

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