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

Re: RIF UCR REVIEW

From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:49:14 +0100
Message-ID: <45DF1B0A.2040706@tu-cottbus.de>
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: "'Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Adrian Giurca wrote:
>
>>    * I believe that the UCR document needs to contain rule examples in
>>      different rule languages and not just a natural language rule
>>      text. This will help to better understanding the RIF requirements.
>
> I thought we made an explicit decision not to do this. I think this 
> was to avoid readers having to understand different rule languages, to 
> avoid setting incorrect expectations on what rule languages might be 
> mapped into RIF and to reinforce that the rules are simplified 
> examples only.
I was not aware about that. However, I guess it is not simple to derive 
requirements if examples are not expressed in concrete languages. Each 
language has its own rule representation and requirements. Their main 
requirements must be captured by RIF. For example rules expressed in 
Prolog must conform to some requirements (see for example  anonymous 
variable from Core) while production rules like JBoss Rules have other 
requirements. I see here three categories of languages:
Classical AI rule languages: Prolog, L-Logic, Jess etc
Semantic Web Rule Languages: SWRL, Jena 2, RuleML etc
Production rule systems : JBoss Rules, etc
Each of them has specific requirements so the RIF must somehow identify 
the common part.
I guess it is more easy to notice readers that the languages in which 
examples are provided does not form an exhaustive set than to just 
provide examples in natural language.
>
>> 8. Vocabulary Mapping for Data Integration.
>> I believe that the rules examples does not illustrate the proposed 
>> scenario. This is an interesting use case but needs rewriting. It is 
>> necessary to provide at least one example of information from the 
>> "report on application services", one from "the maintenance contracts 
>> database" and another one for the "registry of BP and IT services".
>
> The given rules do test for each category of data.
>
> Each of the three initial rules primarily queries data in each of the 
> three categories (in the order "maintenance contracts", "application 
> services" and "business processes") and maps them into the common 
> vocabulary.
Now I've got the point. It is clear.
>
> If you mean that the use case should show the data itself not just the 
> rules then I'm not sure I agree. The data part of the problem is 
> already handled by RDF and OWL and illustrating that would be a 
> diversion from the focus of the UCR document.
Maybe. I'm not sure but I am ready to accept that.
>
> Dave
>
>
Adrian
Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 16:49:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:37 GMT