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

RE: [TED] SPARQL, data sources and blackboxes [was (Re: [UCR] ISSUE-12 and ACTION6198)] --> QLs in BR languages?

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:40:08 -0800
Message-ID: <8F4A4531BB49A74387A7C99C7D0B0E0501D5F280@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "Dave Reynolds" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Dave: assuming "business rule language" refers commercial production rule engine languages (as opposed to SBVR-type natural language business statements): 

Yes, many rule engine languages provide extensions to allow "system rules" to be defined that extract data from database (eg via embedded SQL) or indeed other sources, eg during a transaction. I use the term "system rules" as they are rarely anything to do with business policy or practice, but are entirely to do with IT implementation practice. However, as such system rules are (almost by definition) system-specific (ie installation specific in many cases), they are not likely to be of interest to interchange. In addition, the sorts of rulesets that are optimized for execution (eg by splitting filters across DB accesses and then rule conditions as optimally as possible) are not going to be good candidates for "interchange" - just as if I want to translate from Java to C#, I don't bother with looking at the JITted/optimized bytecode representation...

Cheers 

Paul Vincent
TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dave Reynolds
Sent: 09 January 2007 22:41
To: Christian de Sainte Marie
Cc: RIF WG
Subject: Re: [TED] SPARQL, data sources and blackboxes [was (Re: [UCR] ISSUE-12 and ACTION6198)]


...
I guess there is an analogy with SQL here. I'm sure many business rule 
languages allow you to embed SQL queries. You could have a simpler 
tuple-access primitive and do the joins in the rule engine instead of 
the database but that would often be horribly inefficient so I bet 
people put effort into partitioning the processing nicely between the 
database and the rule engine. Practical interchange of rules via RIF 
would probably require a preservation of the SQL/rule partitioning. 
SPARQL seems analogous.
...
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 07:44:27 GMT

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