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: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:56:11 -0400
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050825035612.BC5D14EEE5@homer.w3.org>


> Yes. Originally our (WSMO&RuleML) understanding was that the intent was to
> start developing a language of rules for the Web, and two months ago we
> sent a proposal for a WG charter (to a limited number of W3C people). I am
> surprised that you haven't seen it, but I am pretty sure that Sandro
> did see it.
> 
> Unfortunately, this draft charter proposal was completely ignored, and
> there was not even a peep in response.

I'm mortified.  I was able to find it, now, in my mailbox, but I never
noticed it at the time.  (It didn't get lost in spam, it got lost in a
pile of important work-related e-mail that I never got back to.)  I'm
so sorry for the confusion and wasted work this loss in communication
has caused, all around.

I don't think that draft is aimed quite right for the larger W3C
membership -- too much Logic Programming and too little Business Rules
-- but it would have made a good starting point.

> RuleML people have realized that there can't be a single super-language
> into which everything can be translated with the same semantics. So, their
> approach is that the semantics rests with the rules languages and RuleML
> defines their XML serializations.
> 
> The dream of being able to take any rule-based language, map it into a
> "superlanguage", push through the wire, and then map it to a different
> rules language at the other end of the wire (with an equivalent semantics)
> is a pipe dream - unachievable. At least, not through FOL. So, RuleML takes
> a more pragmatic approach.

This needs to be explored more, but we can do that in one of the
threads where the argument is being made in detail.

> The only way heterogeneous rule languages can be exchanged as envisioned by
> the W3C charter is if we limit the rule sets to those that are equivalent
> to Horn rules.  This, IMO, has very limited usefulness.

I'm (obviously) not yet convinced that's the only way, although coming
out of the workshop I thought that was at least our best bet.

      -- sandro

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rule-workshop-discuss/2005Aug/0043
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 03:56:20 GMT

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