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

Re: [UCR] ISSUE-12 and ACTION6198 (semantic web rule language)

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:43:26 +0000
Message-ID: <45A3AA0E.3080908@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> csma:
>>>> PROPOSED - The RIF WG will define a small number of standard dialects. 
>>>> Although the design goal of each dialect will be rule interchange, any
>>>> or all of these dialects may be considered standard semantic web rule 
>>>> languages.
> 
> dave in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0012
>>> PROPOSED - The RIF WG will define a small number of standard dialects.
>>> Although the design goal of each dialect will be rule interchange, each 
>>> may be considered a rule language. Since RIF will support rules which 
>>> can process RDF as data and will be compatible with OWL then any or all 
>>> of these dialects could form the basis of some future standard semantic 
>>> web rule languages. However, the RIF WG is not committed to developing 
>>> any such proposals nor laying any particular foundations for them beyond 
>>> the compatibility requirements mandated by the charter.
> 
> csma:
>> PROPOSED - The RIF WG will define a small number of standard dialects.
>> Although each dialect may be considered a rule language, it will be 
>> designed for the sole purpose of rule interchange. Since RIF will 
>> support rules that can process RDF as data and will be compatible with 
>> OWL then any or all of these dialects could form the basis of some 
>> future standard semantic web rule languages. However, the RIF WG is not 
>> committed to developing any such proposals nor laying any particular 
>> foundations for them beyond the compatibility requirements mandated by 
>> the charter.

I'm happy with this modified proposal.

> I'm still not comfortable with the "basis" hedge.  I am comfortable
> calling each dialect a Semantic Web rule language.  There have been
> debates about whether "the standard SWRL" should be in each of several
> styles [1] -- split along the same lines as the incompatible dialects.
> So, using Christian's latest version, I suggest:
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> PROPOSED - The RIF WG will define a small number of standard dialects.
> Although each dialect may be considered a rule language, it will be
> designed for the sole purpose of rule interchange.  Since RIF will
> support rules that can process RDF as data and will be compatible with
> OWL then each these dialects will function as a different type of
> Semantic Web rule language.  The Working Group does not anticipate
> labeling one or more dialects as the "standard" one for the Semantic
> Web unless clear feedback emerges to motivate such a labeling.
> ----------------------------------------

I'm less happy with this one but I guess I could live with it.

I don't like the claim that all RIF dialects are semantic web rule 
languages. Apart from whether they have useful sets of relevant builtins 
(see separate discussion) I don't think all RIF dialects are going to be 
equal in terms of OWL and RDFS compatibility. For example, a dialect 
with an object style slotted syntax with closed signatures would not be 
a good one to pick IMHO. There is nothing *stopping* anyone using such a 
dialect with RDF data but I'd rather not give it explicit working group 
endorsement without a lot of thought.

This phrasing suggests that all that would be left would be rubber 
stamping some subset of the dialects as "standard". In fact, if there 
ever is a working group set up to propose a set of standard semantic web 
rule languages I think it would want to do design work on dialects that 
fit in well with the existing semweb stack which may not match the 
dialects we'll end up with; then there's the work on a usable syntax, 
appropriate libraries of builtins etc.

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:43:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:35 GMT