- From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:00:55 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
+1 At 01:42 PM 2/9/2006 +0000, Dave Reynolds wrote: >Dieter Fensel wrote: > >>This completely neglects the idea of defining (as a side effect) a useful >>rule language for the web. > >That is an interesting way of putting it and I think it goes to the heart >of this "is RIF also a language" discussion. > >[What follows is not as clear as I'd like to be. To claw back some brevity >I'll state as facts some things which are, at best, over simplifications.] > >If we look at the business rules market then we have a number of mature >and successful products. One goal for RIF in that market is to enable >users to move rules between systems, in which case RIF is for interchange >between well-established systems. No vendor will change their language to >move towards some invented RIF language. That's as it should be. > >In the semantic web area we have quite a large number of proposals and >implemented systems with a very wide diversity but not the same maturity. >This diversity inhibits rule developers because they may get locked into a >particular rule implementation and can't easily share their rules with >other web developers who want to reuse them for similar tasks. RIF could >bring some coherence to this space. If there were to be a RIF profile >which defined a reasonably simple, understandable, RDF/OWL compatible rule >format and semantics that covered "80%" of "interesting" cases then: >(a) that might give a profile that rule authors could write to in order to >gain some implementation independence and ability to share rules; >(b) at least some semantic web rule language implementers might migrate >their systems to be more compatible with that profile, possibly even as >far as doing a direct implementation. > >A nice feature of the way the RIF work is structured is that having such a >profile would in no way preclude other extensions needed to handle >exchange between systems with more advanced capabilities. > >Thus whilst the goal of RIF is interchange of rules, it *may* also have >the side effect of providing the seed for a semantic web rule language. I >don't think that side effect is in conflict with the main goal. DERI is fully committed to provide an open source reference implementation for RIF as soon as it is defined. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/ Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8 Skype: dieterfensel
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 14:04:16 UTC