Re: [UCR] ISSUE-12 and ACTION6198 (semantic web rule language)

csma:
> >> PROPOSED - The RIF WG will define a small number of standard dialects. 
> >> Although the design goal of each dialect will be rule interchange, any
> >> or all of these dialects may be considered standard semantic web rule 
> >> languages.

dave in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0012
> > PROPOSED - The RIF WG will define a small number of standard dialects.
> > Although the design goal of each dialect will be rule interchange, each 
> > may be considered a rule language. Since RIF will support rules which 
> > can process RDF as data and will be compatible with OWL then any or all 
> > of these dialects could form the basis of some future standard semantic 
> > web rule languages. However, the RIF WG is not committed to developing 
> > any such proposals nor laying any particular foundations for them beyond 
> > the compatibility requirements mandated by the charter.

csma:
> PROPOSED - The RIF WG will define a small number of standard dialects.
> Although each dialect may be considered a rule language, it will be 
> designed for the sole purpose of rule interchange. Since RIF will 
> support rules that can process RDF as data and will be compatible with 
> OWL then any or all of these dialects could form the basis of some 
> future standard semantic web rule languages. However, the RIF WG is not 
> committed to developing any such proposals nor laying any particular 
> foundations for them beyond the compatibility requirements mandated by 
> the charter.

I'm still not comfortable with the "basis" hedge.  I am comfortable
calling each dialect a Semantic Web rule language.  There have been
debates about whether "the standard SWRL" should be in each of several
styles [1] -- split along the same lines as the incompatible dialects.
So, using Christian's latest version, I suggest:

----------------------------------------
PROPOSED - The RIF WG will define a small number of standard dialects.
Although each dialect may be considered a rule language, it will be
designed for the sole purpose of rule interchange.  Since RIF will
support rules that can process RDF as data and will be compatible with
OWL then each these dialects will function as a different type of
Semantic Web rule language.  The Working Group does not anticipate
labeling one or more dialects as the "standard" one for the Semantic
Web unless clear feedback emerges to motivate such a labeling.
----------------------------------------

[ I was going to respond here to the point about builtins for SPARQL,
but for once I had the sense to check the mailing list and I see a
separate discussion proceeding on that topic.]

    -- Sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWSF-SWSL/#sec-bridge

Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:16:58 UTC