- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:28:06 +0100
- To: der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
[...] > However, I really dispute that this sort of statement would be a change > to the charter. The charter sketches a need for some family of rule > interchange languages and a line of attack on the problem but leaves a > lot of details open. Our job in developing the UCR was to pin down the > space rather better and say what specific requirements we would address. > Implicit in the charter is the possibility that RIF might be, or might > lay the foundation for, some semantic web rules language(s)[*]. It seems > to me entirely within scope that in the UCR work we could have defined > some variant on that as an explicit requirement for RIF and clarified > what it meant, or we could have clarified it as an explicit > non-requirement. > To me this was entirely about what the RIF WG is committing to do, not > what others might do with RIF in the future. At no point have I > suggested that we say RIF *can't* be used as a foundation for some > future semweb rule language. Actually the 1st sentence of the charter http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter *is* [[ This Working Group is chartered to produce a core rule language plus .. ]] (and "plus" is additional to me). Anyhow, I fully agree with you Dave and to me the by far most webized one is N3 http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2006/Papers/TPLP/n3logic-tplp.pdf -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 22 January 2007 23:28:33 UTC