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 01:21:00 -0400
Message-Id: <13e38dedead776590b2dba487906e102@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>

On Jun 23, 2005, at 1:13 AM, Michael Kifer wrote:

>
>> 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,
>
> Well, it is widely used as far as research goes (incl research labs) 
> and
> some in the industry. (For instance, HiLog is now part of Common 
> Logic.)
> Nobody claimed anything more than that.

There has been some at least appearance of a claim.

>> and heavily accepted...er...but the key vendors who are a major
>> focus of a standards effort haven't heard of it.
>
> How many vendors have heard of Description Logic in y2000? y2001?

There's a difference between vendors simplictor, and key vendors. I.e., 
if this group is trying to bring into the semweb fold existing user 
bases and companies (e.g., the prolog community or the business rules 
community) it would be good to look to what they're doing and get their 
buy in.

I'm not saying *you* want to do that, but it's certainly been a 
strongly made argument. "Logic programming" covers a very wide ground.

>> 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 :)
>
> To the contrary. (I think we are building our arguments on incompatible
> proof systems. :)

Which is, of course, a point for me :)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 05:21:12 GMT

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