RE: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR

Thanks Peter: this is the first time I've seen some written argument
against PR support in RIF. Comments below...

PS: I'm assuming this is a serious response, and not a joke (difficult
to identify sarcasm from my perspective).

Paul Vincent
for Fair Isaac Blaze Advisor  -- Business Rule Management System
@ OMG and W3C standards for rules

> -----Original Message-----
> [...]
> 
> > Qu: What are your arguments *AGAINST* PRR support for the widespread
> > adoption [goal]?
> 
> From viewpoint that I espouse:
> 
> 1/ PRR support opposes alignment with the Semantic Web, because it
> requires
>    concepts that are alien to the Semantic Web, and alignment with the
>    Semantic Web supports widescale adoption.

[PV>] This is an interesting viewpoint that we should study in more
detail: if RIF is part of the semantic web and PR opposes the semantic
web, then clearly I am wasting my time in RIF! However:
- what PR concepts are alien to the semantic web? The fact that
production rules are usually defined against data terms, and such terms
are decomposed into RDF in the SW? 
- who claims "widespread adoption" for the SW? I don't see any facts to
support this.

> 2/ PRR support opposes low cost of implementation, because it requires
a
>    complex, non-coherent formalism.

[PV>] I'm not sure I understand this, as there are opensource PR tools
available (ie low implementation cost), and I would be interested in why
(ie supporting evidence) for the complexity / lack of coherence for the
"formalism" (you mean semantics?).

> 3/ PRR support opposes no surprises, because PRRs are inherently
>    surprising.

[PV>] I assume "surprising" has some technical meaning here I am not
familiar with. Exciting maybe... :-) 

> 4/ PRR support opposes the support of logical rules, because PRRs are
>    non-logical.

[PV>] I think you mean to say:
PRR support opposes the idea of RIF as an exclusively logic language,
because PRs are non-logical.
Which is true.
However, why does RIF need to be exclusively about logical rules? Or do
we need to consider RIF(logic), RIF(behavioural) etc ie subtypes of RIF
for different fundamental rule types?

> 
> Most of the above arguments depend on the PRR support being
interpreted as
> support of the inherently operational aspects of PRRs.  If instead,
PRR
> support can be done from a simple, standard logical language, then
these
> arguments have much less weight.

[PV>] It would be interesting to know if PRs can be represented in a
form of logic - chiefly this is the action / RHS / behavioural part. Can
logic be used to describe the behaviour(s) seen in IT systems?
> 
> > Qu: What alternative to PRs will fulfil the widespread adoption CSF?
> 
> The diagram has already several alternatives.

[PV>] Per
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_a
nd_Requirements (thanks Evan for correcting my terminology!) there are
indeed other requirements that fulfil this goal. But note the diagram is
not weighted, and the terms are not defined. For example, if widespread
adoption is defined as being amongst the EXISTING semantic web
community, you are probably correct. If widespread adoption means
amongst EXISTING rule users, then probably adding weights to the links
would indicate importance for the PR support - although of course this
would be difficult to quantify.
> 
> [...]

[PV>] As a counter argument, how many of the use cases assume PRs and
can RIF be viable without such use cases being supported? 


> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
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 Wednesday, 31 May 2006 16:45:17 UTC