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

Re: Reference vs import <-- RIF Core shortened

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:35:04 -0800
Message-ID: <492664A8.2000906@oracle.com>
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
CC: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>, Patrick Albert <palbert@ilog.fr>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

My view is that the phrase "external object model" is a misleading .  It 
is more accurate to think of importing an XML document or a java object 
graph.  Import defines a mapping between the external syntax and the RIF 
syntax.  With a standard mapping and a standard RIF semantics you get a 
standard semantics for importing the external syntax.  We can't map 
everything from an XML document or a java object graph into Core but at 
least we can map objects with slots, membership, and subclass.

Put another way: if you want to exchange rules using a fancy external 
data model, you need to figure out how to map it to your RIF dialect in 
a standard way. 

Michael Kifer wrote:
> ok. But I am trying to make this more concrete so that we'll understand.
> I would like things to be expressed in the context of RIF-Core and of the
> concrete problem for which Gary was seeking a solution.
>
> I don't see how Java objects and external schemas relate to allowing # and ##
> in RIF-Core facts.  I would like to see a clarification from you on that issue
> and Gary's view.
>
> michael
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:22:50 +0100
> Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote:
>
>   
>> Paul Vincent wrote:
>>     
>>> Christian's comment is simply (?) that RIF needs to play well alongside
>>> externally-defined fact definitions (for example external Java object
>>> models used to define production rules in BREs). 
>>>       
>> Thanx for translating from the csma-ese, Paul :-)
>>
>>     
>>> Maybe the qu is whether it is compulsory that all relevant facts and
>>> class relationships need to be represented in RIF for RIF rules to be
>>> defined against them?
>>>       
>> It is compulsory that they need be representable; so, yes, they could be represented.
>>
>> But it is not compulsory that they be represented, as far as I understand.
>>
>> That is, by the way, what I understand Gary says in his reply to you [1], and this is, anyway, what I have been trying to say all along.
>>
>>     
>>> Or have I missed the point (again)? :)
>>>       
>> I do not think so.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0127.html
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 07:36:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:58 GMT