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

Re: Comments on * DRAFT * Rules Working Group Charter $Revision: 1.60 $

From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:23:20 +0200
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20050824001817.05127e48@mail.deri.org>
To: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
Cc: <public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org>,<www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, <edbark@nist.gov>,"Michael Kifer" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>,<james.lynn@hp.com>

At 17:51 23.08.2005 -0400, Adrian Walker wrote:
>Dieter --
>
>At 10:12 PM 8/23/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>>it is not that difficult to identify something around Horn logic
>>with a minimal model as common ground of state of the art rule languages.
>
>That's similar to how we do things in our online system [1].   I wish it 
>was the case that all significant rule systems could be covered in that way.
>
>But I'm afraid that the various procedural rule languages, in which rule 
>order and other factors determine whether a rule will "fire", are simply 
>not amenable to that kind of treatment.


Indeed neither the charter draft nor my proposal are able to straight 
forward cover many procedural aspects of such languages.
I would see this as a second step to tackle with. In general, implementing 
too much of a control flow in a rule language
comes dangerously close to go-to programming anyway.

         -- dieter

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/
Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 22:23:49 GMT

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