Re: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR

As I see it, a RIF that covers logical as well as production rules would:
- help SemWeb technologies enter the market mainstream (mainstream PR 
users will deploy RIF; doing so, they will have a bridge into OWL, RDF, 
etc at no or little additional cost; build a bridge, and almost surely 
somebody will use it...);
- and it would help mainstream (in a market sense) rule technologies 
enter the Web, including the Semantic Web (same line of reasoning as above).

My understanding was that this mutual benefit (depending on wide 
adoption) was a major reason to try to cover the different approaches in 
as far a common way as possible. Of course, this has a cost for 
everybody, as we all knew it from the start. And we (all of us) decided 
to try it anyway and to cooperate with the other groups in that endeavour.

It will be useful to reconsider this strategy if and when the cost 
proves unacceptable for one side or another. I do not think that we have 
this kind of evidence yet: could we now stop this thread and restart the 
discussion from a constructive point of view (e.g. following Gary's 
comment [1]), please?

Christian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0000.html

Vincent, Paul D wrote:

> Thanks Peter: this is the first time I've seen some written argument
> against PR support in RIF. Comments below...
> 
> PS: I'm assuming this is a serious response, and not a joke (difficult
> to identify sarcasm from my perspective).
> 
> Paul Vincent
> for Fair Isaac Blaze Advisor  -- Business Rule Management System
> @ OMG and W3C standards for rules
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>Qu: What are your arguments *AGAINST* PRR support for the widespread
>>>adoption [goal]?
>>
>>From viewpoint that I espouse:
>>
>>1/ PRR support opposes alignment with the Semantic Web, because it
>>requires
>>   concepts that are alien to the Semantic Web, and alignment with the
>>   Semantic Web supports widescale adoption.
> 
> 
> [PV>] This is an interesting viewpoint that we should study in more
> detail: if RIF is part of the semantic web and PR opposes the semantic
> web, then clearly I am wasting my time in RIF! However:
> - what PR concepts are alien to the semantic web? The fact that
> production rules are usually defined against data terms, and such terms
> are decomposed into RDF in the SW? 
> - who claims "widespread adoption" for the SW? I don't see any facts to
> support this.
> 
> 
>>2/ PRR support opposes low cost of implementation, because it requires
> 
> a
> 
>>   complex, non-coherent formalism.
> 
> 
> [PV>] I'm not sure I understand this, as there are opensource PR tools
> available (ie low implementation cost), and I would be interested in why
> (ie supporting evidence) for the complexity / lack of coherence for the
> "formalism" (you mean semantics?).
> 
> 
>>3/ PRR support opposes no surprises, because PRRs are inherently
>>   surprising.
> 
> 
> [PV>] I assume "surprising" has some technical meaning here I am not
> familiar with. Exciting maybe... :-) 
> 
> 
>>4/ PRR support opposes the support of logical rules, because PRRs are
>>   non-logical.
> 
> 
> [PV>] I think you mean to say:
> PRR support opposes the idea of RIF as an exclusively logic language,
> because PRs are non-logical.
> Which is true.
> However, why does RIF need to be exclusively about logical rules? Or do
> we need to consider RIF(logic), RIF(behavioural) etc ie subtypes of RIF
> for different fundamental rule types?
> 
> 
>>Most of the above arguments depend on the PRR support being
> 
> interpreted as
> 
>>support of the inherently operational aspects of PRRs.  If instead,
> 
> PRR
> 
>>support can be done from a simple, standard logical language, then
> 
> these
> 
>>arguments have much less weight.
> 
> 
> [PV>] It would be interesting to know if PRs can be represented in a
> form of logic - chiefly this is the action / RHS / behavioural part. Can
> logic be used to describe the behaviour(s) seen in IT systems?
> 
>>>Qu: What alternative to PRs will fulfil the widespread adoption CSF?
>>
>>The diagram has already several alternatives.
> 
> 
> [PV>] Per
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_a
> nd_Requirements (thanks Evan for correcting my terminology!) there are
> indeed other requirements that fulfil this goal. But note the diagram is
> not weighted, and the terms are not defined. For example, if widespread
> adoption is defined as being amongst the EXISTING semantic web
> community, you are probably correct. If widespread adoption means
> amongst EXISTING rule users, then probably adding weights to the links
> would indicate importance for the PR support - although of course this
> would be difficult to quantify.
> 
>>[...]
> 
> 
> [PV>] As a counter argument, how many of the use cases assume PRs and
> can RIF be viable without such use cases being supported? 
> 
> 
> 
>>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> 
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary
> and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error please delete it immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2006 11:49:32 UTC