- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:31:03 +0000
- To: "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>
- CC: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Vincent, Paul D wrote: > Dave: I didn't catch what existing rule languages you were trying to interchange between. Well in the actual application from which the use case is abstracted the current rule language is JenaRules, one point would be to enable both the authors and the mediator to avoid lock in so they could shift to another supplier. CWM and Euler might be concrete existing open source examples, there are commercial alternatives, for all I know Blaze has an RDF processing mode they could use. > My (probably wrong) impression is that you are proposing > RIF = new rule language + transport mechanism No! I'm not proposing transport at all. In fact the mention of "RIF RPC" in the design goals page worries me and I wanted to pick up on that sometime. > Is not "transport" of rules is different from "interchange"? Absolutely. > For example: if you were using say SPARQL for your ontology mapping, what is the interchange issue in the use case? Surely you simply need to transfer the SRARQL rules with your ontology data between actors? There are no "SPARQL rules", you can use SPARQL CONSTRUCT to do some mapping but not sufficient in general. The requirement is for a vendor neutral format in which these actors can exchange rules. If there were such a thing as "SPARQL rules" that might well satisfy this use case. > What am I missing here? Thanks. It seems like the combination of <rules being exchanged between different parties> and <vendor-neutral format for rules> is not sufficient to place such a case within RIF from your POV. If so that sounds like a useful boundary case. Perhaps could could explain what it is that makes a rule exchange sufficient of a rule "interchange" for RIF to become relevant? Dave
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 13:31:25 UTC