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

Re: Web Rule Language - WRL vs SWRL

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:01:02 -0400
Message-Id: <7c2eec980afbb689d34288ba67fa5af8@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>

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!
>> 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), 

> 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 :)

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 04:01:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:49:40 UTC