- From: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 19:18:18 -0700
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
If your attitude is really representative then I will have few alternatives. Groups are self-selecting in that way. But, several members of the group are in fact motivated by other than academic politics. I was hoping to spur them somewhat. On May 28, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On May 28, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: > >> This note is in reaction to what I feel is a misplaced spirit in >> this group. >> >> I do not have the numbers to hand, but my estimation is that in >> the 'rules market', it would not surprise me if the 'production >> rule'-based technology owned 95% of the market. But you would not >> know that watching the traffic on this list. > > And so? Many of the members of the group are not in the PR rules > market, so it's irrelevant to us, except insofar as those of us > with customers (or other consitencies) of some sort have customers > who are interested in interchanging with PR rulesets. > > The traffic on the list reflects the interests of the group. Each > participant in the group represents their member organization and > its interests. That's how a working group works. If my > organization's interest is to delay or kill production rules, > that's our prerogative. I don't know that anyone on this group has > that agenda, at least per se, (no organization I'm a member of has > voiced this to me), but neither do they have an interest in classic > production rule like systems. > > If you, or others, have such an interest, it's up to you to stick > up for it. > >> By ignoring the PRR side of the side this group risks making >> itself irrelevant. > [snip] > > To you perhaps, but it's a little rash for you to judge *our* > interests and appropriate notions of relevance. > > Now, I've heard appeals from PR advocates (on the one hand) and > e.g., Semantic Web advocates (on the other) that working together > to meet both sets of needs is both possible and offers a boost to > each side. I don't really think that will work, as I said at the > Rules Workshop (at least, I don't think that a joint group is the > best way to proceed). But fine. At least that is a *respectful* > approach. > > Let's face it, to gain consensus, everyone has to offer something > to opposing interests. But saying, "foo is important, screw bar" is > unlikely to win, at least easily. > > But I totally refuse to apologize for representing the interests of > my organzation(s) (er...when I've gotten myself back together > enough to make a telecon :)), and I refuse to stop doing it. > > As for the rest, basically, I think that we're treating existing > languages as embodying application needs, so afaict, we try to deal > languages, not specific applications. As long as the languages have > real user bases, I don't see this is silly. However, there is a > deep question about what useful interchange can be supported across > so many wildly different paradigms. > > Cheers, > Bijan.
Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 02:18:30 UTC