Re: [RIF] Extensible Design

Frank McCabe wrote:
> 
> If you buy the primary goals of the RIF (to exchange rules, in a widely 
> deployable way), then you will *not* accept the multiple languages 
> approach.
> 
> It is way too complicated. And it strikes me as a cop-out (to use an 
> Englishism).
> 
> There is a balance to be struck between enabling exchange and respecting 
> the original. It does not mean that that balance has to be on the 
> respecting end of the spectrum.

+1

> For example, I suspect that there would be very little argument on the 
> need for exchanging ground facts. However, it is not obvious to me that 
> the RIF needs to support RDF to the extent of allowing RDF triples as 
> the consequent of a rule (just to pick a random example). 

Fair enough. To me that's the point of the UCR process, so we agree and 
what is and is not needed. It's why I phrased my strawman goal 3 as 
"foundation for a semantic web rule language" rather than "compatible 
with semantic web standards" to force such issues.

If RDF rules are ... umm ... ruled out of scope then that simplifies my 
life considerably.

> The reason: we 
> are supposed to focus on the exchange of rules, not the generation of 
> new inferences. 

I don't follow that. There are at least four current in-use rule systems 
which support RDF triples as consequences. They might be deemed minority 
systems as far as RIF is concerned but there is at least an a priori 
case that they might want to exchange rules.

> Nor is it our mission to 'fix' RDF.

+1, though I don't think anyone has proposed such a thing.

Dave

Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 15:49:23 UTC