RE: RIF must cover RDF triples as data --> RDF as top level rule syntax?

Dave - assuming this was a qu to the whole group...

Given one of the classification of rule communities in RIF are semantic
web and "everything else", what would be the rationale for a non-SW user
translating a rule to and from RDF tuples? 

(Indeed I have a follow-up qu: why would the Semantic Web want to
represent rules in RDF? I can understand this for "simple" relationship
rules which need to be shared as semantic information alongside RDF
"data", but for more complex rules what is the advantage of
representation in RDF over say XML? As the rule components will only
make sense in the context of each other, splitting up a complex rule
into RDF statements surely will not "buy" anything? Or is this to avoid
mixing RDF with other (eg XML rules such as RuleML) information on the
web?).

Apologies if I am missing something in my Semantic Web education, and
pointers to where I can further educate myself on this matter would be
appreciated! 

Cheers

Paul Vincent, 
TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 

 -----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Dave Reynolds
Sent: 11 October 2006 10:38
To: Christian de Sainte Marie
Cc: RIF WG
Subject: Re: RIF must cover RDF triples as data


Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>
>> [[[
>> *RDF Data*
>>
>> RIF must cover RDF triples as data where compatible with Phase 1 
>> semantics.
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> o RIF MUST provide a mapping from bNode-free RDF statements to RIF 
>> facts so that RIF rules can be applied to (data derived from) RDF
fact 
>> bases. This MAY be a "natural" mapping in the sense that RDF facts
are 
>> mapped to ground instances of unary and binary RIF predicates or MAY 
>> be based on a "holds" predicate.
>>
>> This mapping will support the derivation of new RDF statements (i.e. 
>> bNode-free RDF statements can be made in the head of rules).
> 
> I think that this is what confuses me. Granted, since some rules 
> interchanged in RIF will apply to RDF data, such rules may contains 
> statements that RDF triple XYZ holds, as a condition or as a conlusion

> of a rule; and thus, such statements need be representable in RIF 
> (covered). Granted, they could be mapped in various way (btw, why
isn't 
> embedding RDF/XML an option?).

If you mean "embed RDF/XML as a means to convey facts in a RIF document"

then not only is it an option but I've already proposed a start in that 
direction by suggesting we use RDF/XML as the top level rule syntax.
[Any other reactions to that suggestion BTW?]

[PV>] ...

Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 16:12:01 UTC