- From: Piero A. Bonatti <bonatti@na.infn.it>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:53:41 +0100
- To: "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>, "Dieter Fensel" <dieter.fensel@deri.org>, "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, <edbark@nist.gov>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:23, Vincent, Paul D wrote: > Yes - I guess my "stake in the ground" is that RIF will be more useful > to the state of the market (initially) and thence should allow the > subset of "rules" that are widely used in commercial systems. but you didn't object to what Dave said about taking RIF as a chance to tackle diversity in the less mature semantic web area [today, 14:42], i.e. an early attempt at standardization in a less restricted setting > I'm pretty sure that this rule is not defined as such in any > Fair Isaac financial software system. is this a good reason for leaving this kind of problems out of scope? > Agreed - this is typically (in commerce) handled by planning and > optimization engines, or constraint based reasoning. planning is another excellent target for rule-based systems - I can't see why should we leave it to others > production rules can be > (/are) used very successfully in data consolidation problems. If you > consider the ETL tools, they are effectively processing specific (and > unfortunately, often hard-wired) rules. maybe they have to be hardwired because the rule language's expressiveness is poor... somehow your message seems to confirm my thesis (?) piero
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 17:53:44 UTC