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

Re: Draft charter: Scoping of intent?

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:03:07 -0400
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050826180309.F11DD4EF93@homer.w3.org>

> From my (weak) understanding of business rule languages they seem to 
> include clearly non-monotonic notions like default rules and can depend on 
> the engine's operational semantics. A requirement to losslessly interchange 
> such rules seems hard to square with beyond-OWL-KR.

Business Rules are sold largely on their declarative nature.  While
it's possible to use most BR languages as convoluted programming
languages, that use is generally seen as harmful.  I think we'll get
consensus on relegating such features to vendor-specific extensions.

> > Have you done the mental diff between that and the draft?)
> Clearly huge. We are a long way from FOL-with-equality, that's just nowhere 
> near our design centre. Amongst other things we've dodged the hardest 
> issues by only supporting negation over existential data.
> I guess conversion of Jena rules out to the FOL proposal wouldn't be so bad 
> except for those cases where rules depend on our operational semantics, but 
> you wouldn't expect to be able to interchange those anyway. There's 
> quantification over predicates but hi-log syntax or representing rdf data 
> by rdf(s,p,o) rather than p(s,o) would handle that.

So it's not really that big, right, as long as you don't try to make
it complete?     I'm still a little confused about how to handle your
last point, but I think the WG can figure out something.

   -- sandro
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 18:03:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:34 UTC