W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: discussion of metadata proposals

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:05:15 +0200
Message-ID: <47FF1BBB.4090808@inf.unibz.it>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

> Problems with the earlier proposal
>   1. The old proposal injects new syntax at the metadata level,
>      which cannot be processed by BLD rules.
>      For some in this group it is thus a non-starter.
>      In fact, Sandro mentioned that he would like to import just the
>      metadata -- presumably for processing by a ruleset -- and we agree
>      that this is a good application.

there was nothing from metadata to RDF, which can be imported 
immediately.  Additionally, it would be possible to create a mapping to 
RIF atoms, for processing by RIF rules.

>   2. Inability to attach metadata to a subset of rules.

Well, the old proposal did not preclude this; it would be a rather 
straightforward extension.

>      The new proposal allows arbitrary nesting of metadata attachments at
>      the level of rules and facts.

if nesting of rules it's is allowed, then also the old proposal allows this.


>   3. Two separate tags for attaching metadata instead of one.
>      (This is a lesser issue.)

I would even argue that it is good to have two separate tags, especially 
for identification.  You want to identify rule sets and you want to 
identify and rules.

> Responses to the arguments against the new proposal
>   2. The name <Ruleset> for denoting metadata attachment may be confusing.
>      Well, we could perhaps change the name to <Rules>. This latter
>      keyword carries less baggage.

 From my point of view, the real problem is that you use the name Rule 
sets or Rules for *identifying* a single rule.


>   5. If we use RIF syntax for metadata then people will be confused that
>      the metadata is part of the knowledge base.
>      a. This is not a serious argument. People who would be confused
>         by that should not be allowed within 1000 feet of RIF. :-)

It is a very serious arguments.  It is bad practice to use the same 
syntax for two very different things.

>      b. The main idea of our proposal IS to make metadata into a
>      	  knowledge base and make it processable by other knowledge bases.
> 	  It is just that the metadata is part of a knowledge base that is
>      	  distinct from the main rulebase (cf. Sandro's wish-list).

Using the syntax of frames for metadata does not make it any more 
processable.  The mapping from metadata in the old proposal to frames is 
straightforward and can be used for processing.

best, Jos


Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but
certainty is absurd.
   - Voltaire

Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 08:05:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:50 UTC