> </chair> > (now getting even "more time"-permitting) on a more fine-grained level, > in fact, it might be useful to: > > 1) define our own dialect which can be more restricted or extend RIF > Core in parts; e.g. a dialect that could handle full SPARQL patterns in > rule bodies (which current RIF can't because not all FILTER functions > are covered), that could be done by an additional SPARQL-built-in function. > > 2) present an easier to read presentation syntax for RIF which is > aligned with SPARQL's syntax, at least for examples. This would be > fairly simple and very useful for promoting RIF in the SPARQL cummunity. > <chair> > Hm. Two comments with my different hats:-) - Activity lead hat on, staff contact hat down: This is interesting, important, and even necessary work in my view. It should be done at some point (I already had this discussion with Sandro) because I am not sure we have a good story from RIF to really do RDF+Rules. And that is bad in my view. - Activity lead hat down, staff contact hat on: This is probably out of scope for this Working Group and probably something time will not permit:-( Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 11:48:24 UTC