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

Re: RDF query and Rules - my two cents

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:37:09 -0500
Message-Id: <200311112037.hABKb9dw023551@roke.hawke.org>
To: Benjamin Grosof <bgrosof@mit.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>

[ I'm dropping rdf-interest from the Cc: line; cross posting anything
but an announcement is not appropriate for these lists. ]

> On the contrary, I think we do have exactly such a consensus starting point 
> as a first step:
> the Joint Committee's rules proposal, which is basically to layer 
> restricted Horn rules cf. RuleML on top of OWL.  This is
> currently in late draft and within the next few weeks is planned to be 
> submitted as a W3C Note.

As I understand it, the JC's proposal represents only the OWL DL view
of the universe, and will be unacceptable to much of the RDF user base
(including Jim, I think) who insisted on OWL Full.  The current draft
Rules Charter goes the other way, and says the OWL and Rules are
siblings on RDF, interacting as peers.  My big meta question is
whether we should try to have this out in the chartering decision or
let the WG decide, as WebOnt tried to.

> It represents a consensus built up over the last 15+ months in the Joint 
> Committee in close cooperation with the RuleML Initiative
> and the DAML program, as well as in looser cooperation with the Semantic 
> Web Services Initiative over the last 11 months.

... where the term "consensus" is defined rather more loosely than at
the W3C.  Because the JC has no formal decision process, there are few
guarantees that everyone (even of those invited to participate) gets a
say.   And that's okay for the JC, as one input to the W3C process.

      -- sandro
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 15:34:51 UTC

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