W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Meta-level requirements for RIF

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:14:18 -0400
To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060418171422.8981F4F02C@homer.w3.org>

I think you meant to send this to public-rif-wg@w3.org, Francois.

   -- Sandro

> Dear All,
> This is a try to clarify issues discussed today as well as again and
> again in the past. In my opinion, we rurgently need an agreement on the
> following:
> 1. Data (with their semantics) RIF is to access. In my opinion: RDF, XML
> and OWL -- and I would stronlgy suggest Topic Maps as well.
> 2. What means "rule" for RIF. In my opinion, "deduction rules",
> "normative ruyles" (aka integrity constraints), and "reactive rules" (or
> ECA rules = Event-Condition-Action rules).
> ECA rule include but are not limited to production rules. Events are
> needed for an exchange of reactive behaviour between nodes in a
> distributed context like the Web.
> 3. Semantics requirement for RIF: In my opinion, a declarative semantics
> is needed in the first place but no procedural semantics. This would
> leave interesting questions like termination (in certain cases) open. In
> my opinion, many of these questions could be resolved without specifying
> a full-fledged procedural semantics. And if some questions are left
> open, the RIF would still be very usefull in practice.
> Fran├žois
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 17:14:29 UTC

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