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

Re: NAF v. SNAF - where is this being addressed?

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:54:09 -0400
Message-Id: <p0620072dbee8b954530c@[172.31.0.192]>
To: edbark@nist.gov
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org

At 16:37 -0400 6/29/05, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:

[snip]


>What we do need to do is to deal with three other concerns:
>  - the relationship of rules to OWL
>  - the relationship of rules to RDF
>  - the distributed/linked ruleset

Amen to that

>
>>  On the other hand, if the goal is a distributed set of rules with 
>>the ability to link to other sets, reuse parts of other business 
>>processes, cut and paste one set of rules and edit for another 
>>application, etc. (which, as reflected in the OWL FAQ [1] was the 
>>hard part of going from traditional KR to OWL) then the task is 
>>harder, and NAF/SNAF in particular becomes trickier to apply and we 
>>need to be careful about how we delineate the goals.
>
>So we agree that addressing the issue of distributed rulesets is a 
>W3C concern that goes beyond the (planned) work of the other groups.
>

agreed

>The OWL FAQ to which you pointed contains this observation about KR 
>for the Semantic Web:
>
>>  [OWL] uses the linking provided by RDF to add the following
>>  capabilities to ontologies:
>>    * Ability to be distributed across many systems
>>    * Scalable to Web needs
>>    * Compatible with Web standards for accessibility and
>>  internationalization.
>>    * Open and extensible
>
>[Scalable to Web needs is a ringer.  The interpreting engine has to 
>access, and potentially use every element of, the distributed 
>resource, and scalability is about the limits of that engine.  The 
>W3C role is about distribution, access standards, and extensibility.]
>

scalable doesn't necessarily mean all processing on all stuff must be 
sub-linear, but rather that there is a way to get the "network 
effect" of point at each others reps and the like - but point well 
taken


>Yes, we can and should do this for Rules.  It is a useful enabler.
>
>What it enables may be analogous to giving a child an automatic 
>weapon, but that is the subject of a different diatribe. ;-)

yup, but then so is most Web stuff, and it doesn't seem to have been 
too bad so far (well, unless you're anti-porn, but let's not go there)

>
>>   btw, I think the jury is still out as to whether a Web Rules 
>>Language or a Semantic Web Rules Language is preferable and to be 
>>chartered - but if it is the latter, we have to resolve what we're 
>>trying to do more carefully.

again Amen

>
>I would be happy to leave the Web Rules Language -- the exchange of 
>a closed body of rules -- to the RuleML and PRR folk, but I think 
>W3C would have to build on that to do the distributed and extensible 
>part. So it would be good to work together from this point on. 
>Further I think we really need to talk about the relationship to OWL 
>ontologies and perhaps to ISO CL.  (I would like to avoid the 
>UML/OCL mistake of having unconnected semantic models for two 
>editions.)

again we're tracking -- I sent some use cases to this efffect to 
another list, let me get them and duplicate it here (next message)

>
>FTR, I think the jury is still out on whether OWL is really a 
>Semantic Web Language for distributed, extensible ontologies or just 
>a lingua franca ("Web language") for DL+ ontologies.  So far, all I 
>see is the latter, but OWL is young, and you have to have respected 
>reference ontologies before anyone else can use them.

I don't see how you can possibly say that, but then I guess the way I 
use OWL is different than most peoples -- but play with SWOOP for a 
while, where everything is hyperlinked and the like, load a couple of 
ontologies and link them -- if you're looking for some good reference 
ontologies, I'd direct you to the life sciences - NCI, OBO, the newer 
GO stuff -- lots of OWL starting to grow out there.  It's early, but 
it is growing.
   -JH
p.s. Any web language starts being used mostly local, and the links 
grow as things find each other and find use...


-- 
Professor James Hendler			  Director
Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery	  	  301-405-2696
UMIACS, Univ of Maryland			  301-314-9734 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20742	 		  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 20:54:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:21 GMT