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

Re: RIF UCR REVIEW

From: <giurca@TU-Cottbus.De>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:30:58 -0000
To: "Dave Reynolds" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Adrian Giurca" <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
Message-ID: <twig.1172651458.98039@TU-Cottbus.De>
Cc: "'Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

I agree that RIF/RAF is necessary for UCR. This is clear for me.
Regards,
Adrian  
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> said:

> 
> 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 Wednesday, 28 February 2007 08:31:15 GMT

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