> > So that's my quick analysis to get us started. What issues have I > > missed? > > If I were dealing with Java objects or XML I think that analysis would be > fine. However, in the case of supporting RDF data don't we also have to > consider the semantics of the data, not just its format? > > If the rule language is going to be appropriate for RDF processing it > probably ought to respect the semantics of things like bNodes (not to > mention the open world assumption). Making a rule language based on case 3 > (XML as Fundamental Data) able to correctly process RDF data would surely > take more than just an XPath-friendly RDF syntax. > > Or maybe that's an issue you'd rather separate off? It does strike me as a separate issue. If the rule language itself is a semantic extension of RDF (like SWRL is), then the challenge really is just in dealing with the RDF/XML syntax, isn't it? The rule language itself would have bNodes (file-scope existentially quantified variables), etc. If the rule language has semantics which are incompatible with deployed RDF and OWL, then yes, we have a different set of challenges, well beyond the syntactic ones. -- sandroReceived on Thursday, 7 July 2005 17:01:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:21 GMT