- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:49:25 +0200
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Francois Bry'" <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > It is very puzzling, I feel, to have to argue about this. I thought,
> > industry needs were better accepted in W3C...
>
> In my experience with the W3C, needs of various communities
> are accepted
> in accordance with how those needs are expressed in the Working Group.
> If a community would benefit from having something in a standard, it
> needs to have people in the Working Group who will participate
> effectively on its behalf. That means, at least, presenting clear use
> cases and requirements, and helping do the work of developing the
> technical specificaition.
This has been done, e.g. by Gary and by members of REWERSE, but
still others (e.g. you) have tried to argue that RIF doesn't
really need ECA, and that it can all be done with "logical" rules.
Isn't that a bit strange, a SemWeb enthusiast community (around
RDF/N3) and an academic community (around OWL) arguing that the
SemWeb/RIF doesn't need to take industrial technologies (such
as PRs and RRs/ECA) as first class citizens, but rather that
they can do it better their own ("logical") way?
Why don't you suggest this to the W3C DOM Working Group, that
they should turn their XML event listeners (which are ECA
rules) into some form of "logical" rules?
-Gerd
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 10:13:32 UTC