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

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

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:49:04 -0500
Message-ID: <45B12EC0.7090209@gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

At the Jan 2 telecon there was no objection to the following text for addressing 

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> 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 might be usable as a Semantic Web
> rule language.  The Working Group does not anticipate labeling any of
> these dialects as "standard" for the Semantic Web.
> ---------------------------------

However, I object.  I do not want text that says we will NOT standardize a SW rule 
language, or any softening thereof (like, we do not "anticipate"...).  I am happy 
with text that says this is not our principle goal, since it is not.

I think now I understand DaveR's goal - up until this point (despite Dave being quite 
clear about it all along) I was assuming he was looking for some indication that we 
WILL standardize a SW rule language, but now I (finally) understand that what he's 
after is a clear and definite statement one way or the other.  I'm not willing to 
make such a commitment, as I see many *possible* outcomes and uses for RIF, including 
being the basis of some future standard SW rules language.  However I also see the 
possibility that it would not be.  I would like to leave both of these possibilities 

The charter is vague on this point.  Up until I understood DaveR's motivation here, I 
believed this issue was about making the vagueness in the charter concerning this 
point explicit - i.e. making it clear that the vagueness is intentional, while also 
emphasizing the possibility that a standard SW rules language may come out of RIF.

Therefore I don't think there is text that I can live with that will satisfy Dave's 
desire to have a clear statement.  Further, and more seriously, I think such a 
statement would constitute a change to the charter.


Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
Received on Friday, 19 January 2007 20:49:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:41 UTC