W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2008

RE: New RIF drafts

From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:27:34 -0400
Message-ID: <E4D07AB09F5F044299333C8D0FEB45E904FFDF9D@nrccenexb1.nrc.ca>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "Steve Harris" <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>, <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>

This is referring to

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD#Well-formed_Terms_and_Formulas

Example 2 (A nested RIF-FLD group annotated with metadata).

where it says (emphasis added):

For better readability, we use the compact URI notation which assumes
that prefixes are macro-expanded into IRIs. As explained earlier, this
is just a space-saving device and *not part of the RIF syntax*.

We tried to use a different (italic) font in the wiki for the still
'meta-level' compact URI notation:

<tt>dc</tt> ''expands into''
<tt><nowiki>http://</nowiki>dublincore.org/documents/dces/</tt>

Obviously, this was not clear enough.

I agree that XQuery, SPARQL, RIF, etc. should converge
on a common syntax soon.

-- Harold


-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Dan Brickley
Sent: April 16, 2008 9:00 AM
To: Steve Harris
Cc: Sandro Hawke; semantic-web@w3.org; www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Subject: Re: New RIF drafts


Steve Harris wrote:
>
> On 15 Apr 2008, at 18:07, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>
>>
>> We have some new drafts from the Rule Interchange Format (RIF)
Working
>> Group.  While the group is not targeted at producing a "Semantic Web
>> Rule Language", its output will cover much of the same space.  I
suggest
>> anyone interested in rule languages (especially from a web
perspective)
>> take a look at what RIF is doing and send comments:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/   (our first RIF dialect, Horn with 
>> Equality)
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-fld/   (framework for more logic dialects)
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/  (how to use BLD with RDF, OWL-DL, 
>> OWL-Full)
>
> I'm more-or-less ignorant of the technical issues here, but at a 
> surface level the presentation syntax given in example 2 of the FLD 
> appears to have some arbitrary differences from SPARQL, eg the use of
>    abbr expands into uri
> instead of
>    PREFIX abbr: <uri>
> and the use of ()s for grouping, as opposed to {}s, and some of the 
> operators being prefix and some being infix.
>
> There may well be cultural reasons for this syntax, but I expect many 
> people to want to work with both syntaxes, and some commonality might 
> be helpful in reducing the learning curve.
You know, I was thinking just the same thing as I saw some XQuery and 
SPARQL alongside each other. It would be really lovely if SPARQL and RIF

could share at least some common syntax. My brain is filling up rapidly 
with all these variations...

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 12:29:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:04 UTC