- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:49:21 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
+1 to everything in Dave's reply (including re being able to live with Sandro's proposal but prefering mine). Christian Dave Reynolds wrote: > Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> 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 happy with this modified proposal. > >> 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'm less happy with this one but I guess I could live with it. > > I don't like the claim that all RIF dialects are semantic web rule > languages. Apart from whether they have useful sets of relevant builtins > (see separate discussion) I don't think all RIF dialects are going to be > equal in terms of OWL and RDFS compatibility. For example, a dialect > with an object style slotted syntax with closed signatures would not be > a good one to pick IMHO. There is nothing *stopping* anyone using such a > dialect with RDF data but I'd rather not give it explicit working group > endorsement without a lot of thought. > > This phrasing suggests that all that would be left would be rubber > stamping some subset of the dialects as "standard". In fact, if there > ever is a working group set up to propose a set of standard semantic web > rule languages I think it would want to do design work on dialects that > fit in well with the existing semweb stack which may not match the > dialects we'll end up with; then there's the work on a usable syntax, > appropriate libraries of builtins etc. > > Dave > > >
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:51:46 UTC