W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2015

Re: RIF a failure? (WAS: Question on dereferenceable RIF rules)

From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 19:19:02 +0300
Message-ID: <CAE35VmyjWzKeAsYBbevTh6pLVdrmehKdr=J+E8ubmvCrZ+6zSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
If you plan to transform it to SPARQL, can't you use SPIN rules instead?
http://spinrdf.org/spin.html#spin-rules

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 08:45 +0100, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> On 09/04/15 02:28, Paul Tyson wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 22:33 +0100, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think there are lots of reasons RIF is a failure, and lots of history
>> >> behind that, but I doubt that the lack of single rule import is really a
>> >> significant part of that.
>> >>
>> >
>> > First time I've seen that stated publicly, but I have noticed the
>> > deafening silence around RIF.
>>
>> Simply a personal observation, not in any way representing W3C or any
>> other RIF contributor.
>>
>> > Of the rule languages I've looked at (RuleML, Common Logic, SWRL,
>> > prolog, SBVR), RIF has the best design, easiest on-ramp, and most
>> > versatility.
>>
>> Sure, no technical criticism implied.
>>
>> > Why do you say "failure", and what "history" do you speak of?
>>
>> By "failure" I meant "apparent failure to be used widely", which is kind
>> of the purpose of standards.
>>
>> Why its use hasn't really taken off, and the background to how it came
>> out the way it did, would be fine discussion topics for over a beer.
>
> Yes, I've heard something about executive mandates and scarce resources
> affecting the delivered RIF products.
>
> Be that as it may, say I'm a system architect faced with the problem of
> handling complex business rules around some bunch of domain data. I
> choose RIF, largely because of the "I": it allows  business users to
> view and modify the rules using an XML-based interface, and we can
> develop generic programs to transform it to SPARQL or prolog for
> execution in a variety of contexts. You get all the goodness of RDF and
> XML, and the associated technology stacks, for free.
>
> What am I missing that hundreds of other system architects get who
> aren't making this choice?
>
> Regards,
> --Paul
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 16:19:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:59 UTC