- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 16:48:54 +0100
- To: Frank McCabe <frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com>
- CC: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
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