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

Re: Web Rule Language - WRL vs SWRL

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:49:44 -0400
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050623034944.6EBEACB5D3@kiferserv.kiferhome.com>

> On Jun 22, 2005, at 7:55 PM, Michael Kifer wrote:
> > Bijan,
> >
> > It looks like we agree about almost everything,
> Maybe, maybe not :)
> Part of the problem is we punted back up to a higher level (which I 
> instigated). I think a "multiple stack" view is radically different and 
> a fair bit of thought needs to be put into that and how to make things 
> play well together.

This is something that a WG could tackle.

> Or, to put it another way: your half of the commonality supports, 
> afaict, standardizing soon; my supports standardizing later.
> > and I am afraid that
> > this thread is loosing its entertainment value. :-)
> Oh well. I can call you saprophytic , if that would help :)

This hurts.
I am throwing a big cheese pie (not a particularly tasty one) your way.

> > I just want to comment on one of your points:
> >
> >> The question is on the integration. Do we know enough to design an
> >> integrated solution. If you look at my rules workshop position paper, 
> >> I
> >> argue for integration, but I don't think we're quite there yet
> >> technically. Hence, I'd like to wait a bit.
> >
> > I think the (nonmonotonic) rule-based side of the stack is very mature 
> > (I
> > dare say more mature than the "other" side :-) and if W3 doesn't do it
> > then somebody else will.
> Interesting. Perhaps. I do think that a lighter weight standards body 
> could be a good place to go. (I am interested in knowing what the 
> Prolog vendors think of all this. Also, my impression from the rules 
> workshop is
> 1) RuleML hasn't done what's needed for the business rules 
>    folks, which worries me

I am not sure this is true. The RuleML people can probably update you.

> 2) the business rules folks aren't 
>    particularly interested in the stuff like SWSL-Rules (which does seems 
>    a shame, but is an issue)

They can't be interested in something that they haven't heard about and
don't understand. Give more time. 

How many business people understood and were interested in OWL and its
predecessors in, say, year 2000? It's enough just to recall all the whining
on the RDF mailing lists of the time (and even later)

> > There is a good story about minimal integration
> > using the black-box architecture, and this is very appropriate for
> > standardization.
> I'd like to take some credit for drawing attention to such approaches 
> (for over a year now). Overall they've seemed to have had little 
> uptake.

Maybe now they will. Some things have to wait their turn.


> I hope that our group will release some tools that will get 
> people exploring them a bit more. There are a lot of issues, though. 
> Whether research or standardization is a bit more difficult to judge (I 
> tend to think of them as more researchy).
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 03:49:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:16 UTC