W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > August 2005

RE: Comment on * DRAFT * Rules Working Group Charter 1.60

From: Lynn, James (Software Escalations) <james.lynn@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:39:16 -0400
Message-ID: <5A5CC5E87DE62148845CC96C8868900E04D57A57@ataexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Adrian Walker" <adrianw@snet.net>
Cc: <public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org>, <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, "Dieter Fensel" <dieter.fensel@deri.org>, <edbark@nist.gov>, "Michael Kifer" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Adrian,
 
This has been very informative. It all starts to make sense. I also
would like to hear from the others you have implored below.
 
Thanks,
 
James

________________________________

From: Adrian Walker [mailto:adrianw@snet.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 2:12 PM
To: Lynn, James (Software Escalations)
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org; www-rdf-rules@w3.org; Dieter
Fensel; edbark@nist.gov; Michael Kifer; Jim Hendler
Subject: RE: Comment on * DRAFT * Rules Working Group Charter 1.60 


James -- 

At 01:29 PM 8/23/2005 -0400, you wrote:


	This makes sense. I have only one question. To what extent to we
need to make decisions in this first phase to arrive at a place where we
can do this in the second phase. For example, I believe someone brought
up the question of whether this should be defined as a FOL. Does this
need to be decided in phase 1 or can it safely be deferred until later?


The idea is indeed to defer such questions till Phase 2.  

Hopefully, the Phase1 IO-interoperation proposal in [1]  -- or an RDF or
XML version of it -- is something we can all easily agree on.  

It's designed to appeal to OWL folks, commercial rules system vendors,
CWM folks, and LP folks.  Indeed, to anyone in the rules space.  No-one
has to change their system -- just provide a simple message layer above
it.  Et Voila, we all interoperate!

Thus, we quickly get an agreed SW framework in which we can explore the
practical issues and build useful applications.  A later Phase2
recommendation could then address the deeper issues of rule- and
engine-interchange, based on actual experience of what's important and
what is not.

Would Oracle, Fair Isaac, and the other rules vendors and users,
including those represented at the Rules Interoperability Workshop, care
to comment?  CWM folks?  LP-ers? DERI people? NISTers?

Thanks in advance.

                        -- Adrian



[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19/


<http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19/> 

INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC (R)
Online at www <http://www.reengineeringllc.com/> .reengineeringllc.com
<http://www.reengineeringllc.com/>  

Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 18:39:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:12 GMT