RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR

I think the point being made here is that although "widespread adoption"
may be a CSF, it entails adoption by groups other than those represented
here on the WG (eg 1000+ vendors' customers for production rule
systems).

Off topic: I went to a meeting last week where a content mgmt vendor
(who supports RDF output for his product) gave a presentation on the
Semantic Web and why it was failing to be adopted (/failing to be
adopted faster). RIF was given as an example of W3C creating standards
out of thin air rather than standardising what was used commercially. Ho
hum!

Paul Vincent
for Fair Isaac Blaze Advisor  -- Business Rule Management System
@ OMG and W3C standards for rules
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 2:58 AM
> To: Francis McCabe
> Cc: W3C RIF WG
> Subject: Re: A thought about requirements
> 
> 
> 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.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary
and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please delete it immediately.

Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 17:19:59 UTC