- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:44:23 -0500
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Without Chair's hat on, I personally like N3 rules and anything informative we can do to help implementers is a good thing. With Chair's hat on, I am concerned if the usage of N3 rules is also maybe out of line with RIF, although it might be and might be a standard in the future, much as I have earlier expressed concerns over RDFa syntax stabilization. Any precedent's or rules of thumbs DanC, or anyone else? Informative is, after all, only "informative" - but then I want implementers to not be scared of our spec but ...they need to produce implementations that actually work as GRDDL-aware agents. Or is it time for a "Formal Semantics" for GRDDL doc :) -harry Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > >> Thanks so much for all the hard work on the Spec! I'd like at least one >> more reviewer besides Ron to give a good read before we release it as a >> Last Call. > > I'll volunteer to help review the spec. I'll try to focus on the > informative mechanical rules, as I have a concern that there isn't > much precedent in using rules to express the processing mechanics of a > specification as well as the informal dependencies on the vocabularies > used in the rules (the log:* properties in particular as well as > rdfsyn:*). > > The appendix to the mechanical rules has @@explain TODO's regarding > the vocabularies which are not 'formal', and I think these need to be > very explicit about what the semantics of these terms are. The fact > that the rules rely on generating function symbols makes the > underlying KR quite expressive and perhaps not aligned with the target > KR of the 'sanctioned' > semantic web rule language (RIF) - which is still a work in progress. > > log:uri and log:includes in particular are quite cryptic in their > formal semantics - at least from what I know of what those terms are > meant to mean. > > Though the rules are informative, they have the nice advantage that > they are 'complete' in the sense that proofs can be generated to > determine GRDDL compliance. The bar for the average GRDDL implementor > becomes significantly higher if they intend to interpret the rules in > any formal way, and I think at the very least we should be sure that > the specificatin is as clear as it can be (given the fact that we > still don't have a 'sanctioned' SW rule language) about such an > interpretation. > > Chimezie Ogbuji > Lead Systems Analyst > Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery > Cleveland Clinic Foundation > 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26 > Cleveland, Ohio 44195 > Office: (216)444-8593 > ogbujic@ccf.org > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 03:44:37 UTC