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/
INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC (R)
Online at
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