- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:51:32 -0500
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@sandsoft.com>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Francis McCabe wrote:
> > How about Rule Ontology?
>
> Of course, though that's presumably already in progress with RIFRAF.
There are two separate things, here, right?
1) An ontology of rule systems and rule languages
Instances: each different rule system (Jess, Prova, Blaze
Advisor, JenaRules, etc), as on
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_Rule_Systems
and in the answers to the questionnaire.
The WG will probably provide instance data for a dozen or two, of
the hundreds that probably exist.
This is what I think RIFRAF is about.
2) An ontology of rules and rule sets.
Instances: each different rule and/or rule set
Millions of these exists; users of RIF could be imagined as
authoring instance data in this ontology. I often think about it
that way (I think all syntaxes are just ways of serializing
triples), but I'm agnostic on whether the rest of the WG thinks
about it this way.
I think Frank was talking about #2 when he said "rule ontology".
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 13:51:42 UTC