- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:01:02 -0400
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
On Jun 22, 2005, at 11:49 PM, Michael Kifer wrote: >> 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. Some days I think so. Some days it seems much more researchesque. >> 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. Hmmm. Cheese. With or without saprophytic joy on top? It's the saprophytic goodness that makes *all* the difference! [snip] >> 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. I'm basing it on the Rules workshop, esp. when I asked point blank on the of making the business case people why RuleML wasn't either doing the job *or* the right starting point. Something (perhaps just marketing) is missing. >> 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. I'm the one pro-more-time :) But you can't have it both ways. You often argue that the stuff in SWSL-Rules (e.g., the hilog/f-logic stuff) is well understood, "widely" used, and heavily accepted...er...but the key vendors who are a major focus of a standards effort haven't heard of it. Also, it's not like the key differentiating features show up in some form in the business rules community (in all it's OPS5 derived glory), afaict. > How many business people understood and were interested in OWL and its > predecessors in, say, year 2000? This is a point against your position :) > It's enough just to recall all the whining > on the RDF mailing lists of the time (and even later) Ah yes. The whining. >>> 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. Just as long as it's someone else's thing :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 04:01:04 UTC