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

Christian - I share your understanding too. However, I don't believe we
have gone into any detail on the WIKI on rule types vs relevance to RIF.
Clearly there are some members who feel that some rule types should not
be covered and/or prioritised differently.

We have the technical classification scheme at
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework 

We have the rule languages of interest at
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_Rule_Systems 

Do we need some more work on the classes of rule systems, costs of
interchange, and value to RIF goals and CSFs?

Paul Vincent
for Fair Isaac Blaze Advisor  -- Business Rule Management System
@ OMG and W3C standards for rules

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian de Sainte Marie [mailto:csma@ilog.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 12:49 PM
> To: Vincent, Paul D
> Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; bparsia@isr.umd.edu;
public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 

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 12:01:03 UTC