W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Comments on * DRAFT * Rules Working Group Charter $Revision: 1.60 $

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:13:39 +0200
To: sandro@w3.org
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3D886D6A.A9A80656-ONC1257066.00452128-C1257066.0048A21F@agfa.com>

> We're talking about one language which is a superset of many of the
> common languages, so it can be used as an interlingua.  You translate
> your ruleset into it, and if you can translate it back out into
> another vendor's language (because it has enough features), your rules
> will mean the same thing.   I'm surprised the mission statement
> isn't clear on this.

to me it is Sandro
at least what I did was for a number of test cases
1/ write rules and integrity constraints in first order notation N3
2/ encode that in an XML syntax like explained in
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Aug/0080.html
3/ translate that into
   o swi-prolog and bprolog
   o pttp, prover9 and eprover
   o cwm and euler after rountrip back to N3
and got the derivations that I expected to get
or the system was not capable to run the test case

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 13:14:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:23 GMT