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

>> a RIF that covers logical as well as production rules would:
>> - help SemWeb technologies enter the market mainstream 
>> - and it would help mainstream (in a market sense) rule 
>> technologies enter the Web, including the Semantic Web 
>
> 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.  

Why can't you see this? Because you don't want to see it
(and just want to push your Unitary Church of the Holy Owl)?

The precedence is SQL, which has several sublanguages
catching different formalisms: SQL views correspond to
constructive derivation rules, SQL assertions correspond
to normative/integrity rules, and SQL triggers correspond
to ECA/reaction rules. These sublanguages share some syntax 
and semantics (which is quite useful), but represent
different formalisms.

-Gerd

Received on Friday, 2 June 2006 07:35:18 UTC