Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited)

From: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>
Subject: RE: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:49:50 -0500

> Peter, 
> 
> Let's grant that the RIF is a rule language and that it is executABLE.
> 
> There are still two questions that need to be considered:
> 
> 1) Does a RIF-representation ever need to be executED in order for the
> RIF to do any of its jobs, and
> 2) If so, does the execution required for the RIF to do its job amount
> to the same thing as a rule language executing? 

This depends on what you mean by "executed".  If a RIF-KB is translated into
another rule language and the result is executed, is the RIF-KB itself
executed?   There are many other gradations to be considered here as well.

> Only if both of these questions are answered in the affirmitive would
> making the RIF an executable rule-language be an explicit design goal.

Huh?  This seems to be of the form 1/ Assume "A"; 2/ Is "A" necessary?  I thus
cannot make sense of the point.

> For example, a UML representation of an application or system has a
> formal syntax and semantics, and might very well be exectuable, but it
> doesn't need to be executed in order for it to do its job, which is
> fundamentally to convey information about the application. 

Again, this depends on what you mean by executed.  

> Right now I see the RIF as having two main "jobs": interchange and
> interoperability.  Interchange  involves 1) translating from some rule
> language into the RIF, and 2)taking the resulting RIF-representation
> and translating that into another rule language.  I don't see how
> executing a set of RIF-rules would necessarily be involved in that
> process.  Basically this is a compilation problem. 

Compilation?  Well, maybe, but I don't see how alluding to compilaiton improves
our understanding of the RIF.

> On the other hand, I can see that having an interpretable RIF rule
> language might enhance interoperability.  A set of rules might be
> written in one language and then translated into the RIF.  That
> RIF-representation could be used by a RIF-interpreter running on a
> server to answer queries coming in from various client processes
> running different rule-systems.  The client queries would have to be
> translated into a RIF-format and the answers would have to be
> translated back into the various rule languages of the client systems.
> If that scenario  makes sense in practice (as a use-case) then I would
> say that making the RIF an executable rule-language should be a design
> goal.

I don't understand the difference.

> It seems to make sense on the face of it, but then again, so have other
> ideas...
> 
> Allen

peter

[...]

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 14:06:24 UTC