Re: [UCR] use case response

Jim Hendler wrote:

> Let me make clear my motivation about the following - I think too many 
> people in this group are still working on use cases for rule-based 
> reasoning, not for Web rules or rule exchange.

Jim, can you explain what you mean by "web rules" here?

As I tried to explain in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0105.html
our primary interest is in a language which would enable people working 
with semantic web data to use rules. This would include people expressing 
rules which they are explicitly publishing for others to use but also 
includes people just using rules within a system which is consuming and 
producing semantic web data.

This is analogous to query. There is value in the ability to send SPARQL 
queries to remote sources but some SPARQL queries will only ever get used 
within a given system yet the value of standardizing the language for those 
is still high (safe-guarding investment, encourage tool provision, ability 
to shift between tools).

We accept that it is not the purpose of RIF to define a rule language that 
will meet our needs. However, by requiring RDF and OWL compatibility RIF 
may end up providing a framework which will meet our needs as a side effect.

Now the WG could decide that this desire for a side-effect is in conflict 
with the main goal, that the group should only be about rule exchange and 
have no regard to the possibility of a semantic web rule language. That 
would be just fine and would simplify my life considerably.

So had you just contrasted "rule-based reasoning" with "rule exchange" I 
would understand where you were coming from. But you've left open this "web 
rules" bit which seems somewhere between the two. So what do you mean by 
"web rules"?

Dave

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:03:37 UTC