Re: RIF UCR REVIEW

Adrian Giurca wrote:
> 
> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>
>> Adrian GIURCA wrote:

>>> By the way, many questions in RIF/RAF are meaningless for interchange.
>>
>> Possibly so, would you like to give more details on that?
> I have in mind the following  languages: Prolog, F-Logic, Jess, Jena2, 
> SWRL, JBoss Rules, Oracle Business Rules.
> The terminology used in RIF/RAF 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework> 
> is pure logical. In some languages it is not straightforward to express 
> these questions.

Agreed. I certainly remember an issue/action about adding more 
production rule friendly RIFRAF questions for example.

My question was not meant to imply "I think RIFRAF is just fine" (far 
from it, I'm not personally happy with the set of RIFRAF questions) just 
to encourage you to clarify your specific concerns.

> Lets look now to some questions:
> 1.1.1. For me this seems to don't apply for too many languages.And how 
> helps us the choice: "Only single occurrence of variables per predicate"

+1

> 1.1.2 The choice "Head-only variables allowed"
> 1.3. Do you allow this in Jena2?

No.

> 2.5 What is the meaning of this question in JBoss Rules, Oracle Business 
> Rules for example? But in Jena2?

I guess the fact that Jena2 only has binary predicates would go in there.

> 2.7 "...Unlabeled Clauses"  Which languages have clauses?
> I don't want to extend the discussion now.  This is not my goal. I 
> accept the document as it is. However, I suppose it is better that the 
> RIF/RAF to be public and then its results to be used against 
> requirements. Otherwise the Core may not really use the UCR and/or 
> RIF/RAF document as an input.

For me the current labeling of the RIFRAF section as being very much 
work in progress makes it acceptable for a working draft but I agree it 
has a way to go yet.

Dave

Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 20:25:40 UTC