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

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

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>
Message-ID: <OF180D38F2.23654299-ONC125726B.007F6805-C125726B.0080E06E@agfa.com>

[...]
> 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 GMT

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