W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

"rdf rules"! (and rdf query)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:25:00 -0400 (EDT)
To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0206220704040.11295-100000@tux.w3.org>


(+cc www-rdf-rules, since we're clarifying the role of that list)

Uche, RDFIG,

On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Uche Ogbuji wrote:

>
> > The query and remote access areas will proceed independently - Alberto
> > Reggiori offered to initiate discussions in the query area and Andy
> > Seaborne offered to initiate discussions in the remote access area.
> >
> > The query thread of discussion will use the existing mailing list
> > www-rdf-rules@w3.org
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/>
>
> Why is discussion of RDF query mixed up in a mailing list on RDF rules?  For
> those of us trying to minimize the burden of mailing list subscriptions,
> shouldn't there be a mailing list dedicated to such an important topic as RDF
> query?


This is my fault! Let me explain...

When we were discussing (in the SW Coordination Group) the chartering of
the Web Ontology WG it became clear that the expression of RDF inference
rules was close to WebOnt's area of work. I was concerned that if WebOnt
did much work in that direction, it would create a language that 'covered'
RDF query as a side effect. As things turned out, the WebOnt charter
didn't include much in the way of rule-related work.

So, we have two technical topics: RDF rule languages, and RDF query
languages. Some folks are interested in the one, and some in the other.
Both topics are pontential candidates for future W3C Working Groups.

The reason we have one RDFIG list for this rather than two is that I would
much prefer the overlap between rules and query to be explored in the
pre-WG phase. We could easily have created one environment for rules folk
to discuss their ideas, another for query, and ended up (in next year or
so) with two Working Groups whose scope overlapped. Coordinating technical
work across WGs is an expensive business. I therefore prefer to put
everyone in the same environment for a while to see how things shake out.

Currently, list traffic on www-rdf-rules is pretty modest. I hope to see
the list used for practical 'task force' efforts such as those Andy
described. Some will focus on query, some on rules, some on the overlap. I
have a particular interest in working on test suites for RDF query
systems, and for using those with rule-based RDF systems too. The
www-rdf-rules list is a natural home for such efforts. For general
wide-ranging technical discussion of logic on the Web, we have
www-rdf-logic. The rules list should be a "getting some work done" list,
whether that work is focussed on querying, on inference, or on the
relationship between the two.

If others would like to initiate additional 'task force' efforts relating
to rules and query, please write up a summary and send it here, copying that list
too. I would particularly be interested in work showing interop and
relationship between rule-oriented and query-oriented systems (languages,
implementations...).

My main point is that the relationship between rules and query is
something we'd be better off exploring _before_ we go chartering new
Working Groups. The list 'www-rdf-rules' might've been called 'and query',
except I thought 'rdf rules!' was a nice slogan and saved on typing...

Dan


RDF Interest Group chair

ps. we also have www-rdf-logic, I almost added that to the cc list here.
Having www-rdf-interest, www-rdf-logic, www-rdf-rules, AND a www-rdf-query
strikes me as overkill. So we don't have the latter. I'm not entirely
convinced we needed three, but there were both rules and query folk last
summer who wanted a new more specialist list. Let's see what we can make
of it...


-- 
mailto:danbri@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Saturday, 22 June 2002 07:25:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT