W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Rules WG -- draft charter

From: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:10:06 +0000
To: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2znf4p8dt.fsf@evila.danbri.org>

Hash: SHA1

Sandro Hawke <sandro@roads.org> writes:

> As Dan Brickley mentioned, we've been working on a Rules charter, too.
> Here it is:
>        http://www.w3.org/2003/10/swre578
>        (currently at revision 1.24)
> It's still rough in places, but I think it gets the point across.
> Wording suggestions are welcome, as are questions about what is meant
> by some section or phrase.
> What Dan Brickley said applies here, too:
>        Did I mention yet that it is an *early* *draft*? For
>        **discussion**? Nothing is set in stone. Specifically, we
>        haven't proposed anything yet to W3C's Advisory Committee, and
>        they've not approved anything. 
>        [The draft] will quite possibly change over the coming weeks,
>        so please be sure to cite the $Revision number from the
>        'Status' section.
> I'll try to follow any discussion between now and the 20th, and update
> the document as necessary.
>      -- sandro

[Doh - wide reply, idiot, so others can read it]

Thanks for this Sandro. A few little suggestions follow:

1. Who wrote this draft? Might be a useful addition. (Entirely
possible I missed attribution).

2. (Perhaps in 2.2 Expressiveness) I'd suggest explicitly disallowing
non-monotonic extensions of RDF semantics and things like weak
negation [1], since I find them troublesome in a web (open world)
context. Buchingae [2] has weak negation, for example.

3. End of 2.3 Syntax. Is the OWL rules syntax not independent of OWL?
It looks like you can clearly pluck out the rules syntax from the OWL
syntax, but it you do say that will be expanded upon.

4. 2.4 Standard Library. log:semantics and the document() function - I
think that needs plenty of justification. In XML contexts I see the
need - referencing distinct documents - but in RDF documents are
a pretty vague concept, and anyway RDF is trivial to merge
and that can be done prior to applying rules.


[1] Strong and weak negation (need a better link): <http://bruce.edmonds.name/simmodcon/simcon_15.html>
[2] Buchingae: <http://machine-knows.etri.re.kr/bossam/docs/buchingae.html>
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 10:09:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:14 UTC