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

My original email had two components to it.
The first sparked off this thread.
But the second is, in my view, more important: that requirements  
should focus on applications not technology.

Thus, Peter has it partially right in thinking that DBMS vendors have  
a stake in the outcome (but, where is Oracle?).

A widely used DB constraint language is somewhat overdue for an  
appearance and something like the RIF could foster that. But to  
address that need involves asking what specific features of the RIF  
would help or hinder that cause.

Incidentally, I foresee that we will need to nail people feet to the  
requirements for them to have much effect.

Frank



On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
> Subject: Re: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR
> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 13:48:48 +0200
>
>> As I see it, a RIF that covers logical as well as production rules  
>> would:
> 	[I view the wording in the above phrase as not even-handed.]
>> - help SemWeb technologies enter the market mainstream (mainstream PR
> 	[I don't see the mainstream PR vendors as the rule market
> 	mainstream.  I instead view the DBMS vendors as the true rule
> 	market mainstream.]
>> 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).
>
> I believe that this depends on *how* the RIF would cover both  
> logical and
> production rules.  If the RIF is in essence multiple formalisms  
> sharing at
> most a portion of the syntax (with the production rule formalisms  
> being
> disjoint from the formalisms that cover logical rules and the  
> existing W3C
> Semantic Web languages), then I don't see how it would advance  
> either of
> the above goals.  I could even see such a RIF being a hindrance to  
> both
> these goals because it would engender a false sense of progress and a
> subsequent lessing of actual activity towards these goals.
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, at least we all should have agreed that our separate  
> understandings
> of the charter of the working group were somehow related to possible
> futures that we found potentially desirable.  Whether this results in
> cooperation then has much to do with whether the disparate  
> understandings
> can be reconciled in some useful fashion.
>
>> 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?
>
> It seems to me that there has been recent evidence in the WG  
> mailing list
> supporting the contention that there is indeed some feeling that some
> interpretations of WG documents by WG members are unacceptable to  
> other
> members of the WG.  I'm not convinced that the situation is  
> unrepairable,
> but I do worry that ignoring it will simply drive it underground, to
> surface later when it will cause even more problems.
>
>> Christian
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/ 
>> 0000.html
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2006 20:19:51 UTC