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

+1 to everything in Dave's reply (including re being able to live with 
Sandro's proposal but prefering mine).

Christian

Dave Reynolds wrote:

> 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 14:51:46 UTC