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

RE: Reference vs import <-- RIF Core shortened

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:42:08 -0800
Message-ID: <A92210407BA7004199621BE5F0AC5D8B1B779C@NA-PA-VBE04.na.tibco.com>
To: "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Cc: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "Dave Reynolds" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Patrick Albert" <palbert@ilog.fr>, "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>

Hi Gary: what you say makes perfect sense. However, your use case,
translating from an RDF model (presumably with an RDFS interpretation)
into a Java object model, makes explicit the idea that RIF = rule +
term/fact interchange.

This somewhat extends the scope of RIF from "rule interchange based on
some assumptions about a data / object model" to "rule and data / object
model interchange".

My concern is really that this could be a major undertaking. My prior
assumption was that, for PRD anyway, we would initially consider
something like XSL/XML+RIF interchange, and maybe extend to other
object/data mechanisms, and possibly between such mechanisms, in future
versions, as required. 

Cheers

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Hallmark [mailto:gary.hallmark@oracle.com]
> Sent: 23 November 2008 05:58
> To: Paul Vincent
> Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie; Dave Reynolds; kifer@cs.sunysb.edu;
Patrick
> Albert; Boley, Harold; Adrian Paschke; Axel Polleres; RIF WG
> Subject: Re: Reference vs import <-- RIF Core shortened
> 
> Paul,
> 
> RIF actually has an object/data model.  It's not very rich, because
some
> WG members believed (erroneously) that they could specify RIF without
> *any* data model.  But of course we have Herbrand terms (flat
relations
> in Core/PRD) and we have objects with slots and classes.  And we have
> the XML schema datatypes.  That sure sounds like an object/data model,
> and RIF translators are obliged to translate between this RIF data
model
> and the target rule language data model.
> 
> Now, if we have an "import foo.xml" addition to RIF, then the
> translator's additional job is to "hook up" the facts in that xml
> document with the target rule language data model using whatever means
> it can (e.g. I like JAXB), but the ensemble must behave *as if* the
xml
> syntax was mapped to RIF syntax in a manner that we specify.
> 
> Paul Vincent wrote:
> > Gary - are you envisaging that RIF translators will also do
object/data
> > model translation?
> >
> > I have to say I didn't imagine that would be in scope - ie I assumed
> > that RIF would assume that the translation of any external
> > object/data/fact model would be handled by other means.
> >
> > Paul Vincent
> > TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Gary Hallmark [mailto:gary.hallmark@oracle.com]
> >>
> >
> >
> >> challenge accepted, so below
> >>
> >> Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> >> Here's a production rule I'd very much like to write if I'm trying
to
> >> translate between RDF and Java objects:
> >>
> >> if ?o # ?c1 and ?o # ?c2 and not(?c1 = ?c2 or exists( ?c ?o # ?c
and
> >>
> > ?c
> >
> >> ## ?c1 and ?c ## ?c2))
> >> then ConstraintViolation("found an object that cannot have a Java
> >>
> > Object
> >
> >> Model")
> >>
> >>>
Received on Sunday, 23 November 2008 14:44:05 GMT

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