- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:41:08 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: > 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". I agree these are two separate things but isn't (at least part of) the intention of the RIFRAF work to inform #2 by identifying common shared concepts? Perhaps I should have said "in progress via RIFRAF". Personally I'm not particularly motivated by #1 but had thought it had been justified as input to #2. I was assuming the RIFRAF work would generate outputs such as "lots of rule language seem to have feature X, how will we handle feature X?" and feature X is then a shared concept in the sense of #2. For example: "ah, there is a cluster of languages here that support what we might call 'action rules' which invoke some sort of action in their consequent, so we need to make sure the #2 ontology includes concepts like :Action, :ActionRule and an extensible library of specific types of action. Here's the specific sorts of actions that seem to be needed ..." Dave
Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 14:41:38 UTC