- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 16:47:41 +0100
- To: Alex Kozlenkov <alex.kozlenkov@betfair.com>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Alex Kozlenkov wrote: > I am not sending a message against OWL or RDF. I am simply asking > whether _querying_ RDF and OWL in rule antecedents is enough or not for > RIF at this time. As I've already said in my response to the proposal, external-query-only is not sufficient from my point of view. I need to be able to express at least deduction rules over RDF and an external query approach doesn't facilitate that. I would prefer a tighter embedding of RDF into RIF (e.g. either a three place predicate or the ability to interpret any atoms over binary relations as RDF triple patterns). > Reaction rules may involve a sequence of actions as opposed to one > action. Semantics of these sequences of actions may be based on > transaction logic or be even based on process algebras. OWL and RDF > semantics are likely to be complementary to those. Complementary is different from incompatible. What specific problems do production rules raise when processing RDF data that don't get raised when processing, for example, XML data? [I'm not trying to deny there are subtleties there but I am try to pin down what specific problems make you unhappy with the more integrated approach.] Dave
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:48:02 UTC