Re: Issue-12 and the next UCR draft

+++1

axel

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 
> Issue 12 [*] is the proposal that "RIF should be usable as the basis for 
> a Semantic Web rule language".
> 
> Given our lack of discussion on this since the last F2F I'm guessing 
> that the default is that it won't make it into the next UCR draft. That 
> would be regrettable.
> 
> A colleague experienced with W3C pointed out to me that the purpose of 
> Working Drafts is not just a "heartbeat to show progress" but an active 
> mechanism for soliciting feedback from the target community. For that 
> reason it is sometimes desirable to deliberately include non-consensus 
> issue to solicit feedback.
> 
> I would like to propose that we treat issue-12 in such a way.
> 
> Specifically, that we include a section under "Goals" along the lines of:
> 
> [[[
> Proposed goal: RIF should be usable as the basis for a
>                Semantic Web rule language
> 
> <emphasis>The Working Group would like to solicit feedback from the 
> community on whether this should be an explicit goal of the RIF 
> activity.</emphasis>
> 
> Discussion:
> 
> If RIF meets the other goals and critical success factors in this 
> document it will provide a rule interchange format which will be 
> semantic web compatible, at least in the sense it will be possible to 
> exchange rules which reference RDF and OWL data.
> 
> There are already a large number of in-use or proposed semantic web rule 
> languages (CWM, Euler, WRL, SWRL, SWSL, JenaRules etc)[refs]. It will be 
> possible to transmit some fragment of these rule languages via RIF. 
> However that on its own does not provide interoperability - a SWRL 
> engine will not be able to execute an arbitrary CWM ruleset, nor vice 
> versa.
> 
> The working group is currently divided on whether this is sufficient or 
> whether some further step is needed to give guidance to semantic web 
> rule developers and implementers. We seek feedback from the community on 
> this issue.
> 
> By phrasing this goal as "provide the basis for ..." we are indicating 
> that there is unlikely be a single semantic web rule language and that 
> RIF will not propose one. However, it also says that RIF should go 
> further than minimal compatibility and try to bring some order to the 
> chaos of semantic web rule languages. For example, this might take the 
> form of a recommended profile or small number of dialects, with 
> recommended sets of builtin predicates and functions. This would not 
> suppress the continued invention of new rule languages for semantic web 
> applications but would provide a common denominator that developers and 
> implementers could agree upon as a useful core.
> ]]]
> 
> The phrasing of this may well not be right (it's getting late over here) 
> but it would good to get agreement, or not, on the principle of 
> including something like this, separate from criticism of the word 
> smithing.
> 
> Dave
> 
> [*] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/12
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 09:28:10 UTC