- From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:46:53 +0200
- To: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
- Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>,Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
>It may make sense to write the charter to be agnostic on this question
>and let the WG decide. I used to think that was a terrible idea, but
>now I'm starting to think it really is a highly technical and
>not-so-political issue, so maybe the WG can handle it.
Dear Sandro,
indeed I agree with you that it is not a political question but a technical
question (and I overreacted in my first email because I had
assumed some hidden politics behind). Unfortunately, this makes it
also a bit more difficult since compromising is a proper strategy in
politics and usually a bad solution around technical issues. Still, I think
the charter could work if we could stay a (very small) bit more generic.
Instead of requesting "full first order logic" we could ask the working
group to define "an expressive fragment of FOL that can be used to
resolve all major syntactical and semantical issues in interchanging
rules from various languages." I think this would make everybody happy
and it is also in the line of an earlier email by Jim Hendler. Clearly, there
will be some battleground left for the working group but I am quite
optimistic that it can be resolved. Especially, when we also look for
some subsets (that were called profiles) the various controversial
issues could be captures through this since they could be specialized
towards a certain paradigm based on justification through use cases.
-- dieter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/
Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 10:54:02 UTC