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

Re: Metadata Strawman 1

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:39:30 -0700
Message-ID: <46434AC2.8010203@oracle.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

+1 if the concrete syntax for the ASN you propose is a straighforward 
mapping to XML Schema
-1 if the concrete syntax is RDF

Sandro Hawke wrote:

>Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com> writes:
>>-1 for RDF.  My rules product supports Java data and XML data but not 
>>RDF data.  In fact, we don't have any RDF capability in the "tech stack" 
>>for Oracle Business Rules  (although there are other Oracle products 
>>that do).  Mandating RDF in Core will raise the implementation cost of 
>>RIF translators for existing rule systems that otherwise do not use RDF 
>>to unacceptably high levels. 
>>I very much favor having meta-data.  We should have a small set of 
>>standard properties like ruleset name, rule name, 
>>modification/translation history, etc. and allow additional 
>>(non-standard) properties as well.  This should be specified using the 
>>same abstract syntax notation used in the Core and should end up as both 
>>a human readable syntax and more importantly as part of the Core XML schema.
>What about if the "RDF" we're talking about is the RIF subset of RDF?
>Here's a strawman proposal to show how that might be done, without
>causing you much implementation burden....
>As I understand it, RIF will have some construct for stating
>property-values triples, in conditions, in a way which matches F-Logic
>and (Skolemized) RDF.  It should more-or-less line up with Java data and
>XML data, although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by those terms.  
>The abstract syntax in the working draft is:
>   class ATOMIC
>       subclass Equal
>          property side: list of TERM
>       subclass Uniterm
>and I think we've decided, in principle, to add
>       subclass Triple
>          property subject: TERM
>          property property: TERM
>          property value: TERM
>So, for this strawman proposal for including metadata in RIF, let's add
>a 'metadata' property to Ruleset:
>      class Ruleset
>         property formula : list of RULE
>         property metadata : list of Triple
>(We may want to restrict it further, not using TERM, but only Const.)
>Another aspect of saying "let's use RDF" for metadata is that we
>leverage existing vocabularies.  For instance, if you want to say who
>authored a rule, you can use the property with the URI
>"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator" (commonly just called
>"dc:creator"), which is a property managed by the Dublin Core Metadata
>Initiative [1], etc.
>It's not clear to me whether we (as RIF-WG) want to 
>    (1) say you should use that URI
>    (2) make up some other URI for the author/creator property
>    (3) remain agnostic/silent on the question.
>In any case, this RDF-inspired approach lets us make this choice, as we
>like, for each property in question.
>I should say that I can imagine other approaches to metadata, and this
>may not be the best one -- it's just a strawman that I think will work,
>and not cause too much implementation burden.
>     -- Sandro
>[1] http://dublincore.org/


Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Gary Hallmark | Architect | +1.503.525.8043
Oracle Server Technologies
1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 800
Portland, OR 97204
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2007 16:40:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:44 UTC