Re: [UCR] use case response

At 18:36 +0000 2/21/06, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>Jim Hendler wrote:
>
>>  At 10:00 +0000 2/21/06, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>
>>   >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.
>>   >
>>  I don't understand, the notion of a Sem Web rule language is okay 
>>with me, but that isn't the same as what you said above
>
>In that case I'm either not being clear (as usual) or 
>mis-understanding what you mean by sem web rule language or, 
>probably, both.
>
>I'm not sure I see the difference between what I'm asking for and 
>the first use case in section 1.1 of the WG charter.

I read use case 1.1 of the Charter to be primarily concerned with 
using rules to map between schemas for different DBs (which I assume 
would be expressed in RDFS or OWL) - I may have read too much into it.

>
>>  I was primarily using "web rule" to mean a syntactic standard for 
>>representing rules in one of the major Web languages  and 
>>explicitly grounded in URI space - I generally use "Web ?x" to mean 
>>?x being webized as in [1]
>
>So a rule language, with an XML serialization, in which all 
>predicate symbols were URIs, which runs over data expressed in RDF 
>(so variables get bound to RDF resources) and which can conclude RDF 
>statements ... would that automatically be classifiable as a "web 
>rule" language or would there need to be some deeper webization to 
>qualify?

I'd count that (and, in fact, at one point in the pre-history of this 
WG had argued that it might be better to get something like that out 
first and worry about these semantic things after).   That doesn't 
mean it would be my first choice at this point, but if the WG decided 
that the best way to address the charter was by creating something 
like that I wouldn't see that we had been unresponsive to the 
charter.  That said, you know quite well that I'm a big RDF fan, put 
a lot of my own skin in the game to make sure OWL lived in the RDF 
world, and think it would be foolish if we didn't at least have an 
RDF compatible syntax for the rules (for example, a mapping via GRDDL 
from an XML schema would be something I'd consider worth exploring if 
the WG was going in that direction)
-- 
Professor James Hendler			  Director
Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery	  	  301-405-2696
UMIACS, Univ of Maryland			  301-314-9734 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20742	 		  http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
Web Log: http://www.mindswap.org/blog/author/hendler

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 16:45:43 UTC