- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:21:32 +0200
- To: der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
Dave Reynolds wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> >> [snip] >>>> There are already a large number of in-use or proposed semantic web >>>> rule languages (CWM, Euler, >> >> These are not rule languages, but rule engines. The language they >> support is N3. > > They certainly both use the N3 syntax for rules, I wasn't sure if they > supported the same range of operators and builtins these days and so > whether they are really equivalent implementations of a single language. > Jos? I plan to complete the implementation of the builtins at http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/CwmBuiltins.html but I also have experiments going on with http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/log-rules.n3 (the actual implementation of builtins is in http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2006/02swap/euler.yap) >>>> 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. >> >> Good luck :) > > Let me be clear on this. I'm not saying "the working group must do this" > I'm saying "the working must say clearly whether it is doing this or not". > > Personally, about 2 hours into the first f2f meeting I suspected the > answer was probably going to end up as "no, we're not". I just want > clarity, partly for expectation setting, and partly (being parochial > here) because it will affect how HP regards my time being spent in RIF. > >> There are deep issues with BNodes that have hurt us in SPARQL, and I >> think most extant SemWeb rule languages largely punt on them. It would >> be good to deal with them properly. (e.g., are BNodes scoped to the >> document? Even when they appear in rules?) > > Agreed there are dragons there. I'm in favor of a semantic web rule language that can simply run :-) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 22:22:33 UTC