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

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> In particular the bit that you seem particularly keen on, the user 
> friendly syntax, is the bit that seems to be most clearly outside RIF.

... and also, it is outside DAWG to define a rules language. It seems 
still important to me, but somewhere in between.

> So a variant on your proposal is that a group of us could informally go 
> off and work out what a simple RDF rules language based on the SPARQL 
> expression syntax might look like.

That would be great, especially if I find people willing to joi such an 
effort! :-)

> Then we could take the results back 
> to RIF and use it as a test case for RIF dialects and work out how to 
> exchange the resulting rule language via RIF. This might well be a 
> worthwhile thing to do but I think the result and indeed the group 
> itself would have no formal standing within RIF. From RIF's point of 
> view this would be just another client language - no different from N3, 
> JenaRules or whatever that might want to be exchanged over RIF.

I tend to disagree wrt. to N3 a bit, since its formal semantics of
n3:semantics, is at least "blurry", being defined mainly via its 
implementation cwm and in mostly natural language only, otherwise. I 
discussed with Dan C a bit and we saw that there are for example 
termination problems with recursion over negation in cwm. In fact, this 
is a cornercase, where several RIF solutions would be possible 
(well-founded, stable semantics, etc).

Anyway, I'd be glad if we could further discuss such a "sub-effort", if 
we find more people interested in RIF and DAWG.

I'd like to kindly ask about the opinions of the chairs, whether such an 
effort would be welcome, and/or would at least have informal support 
from the WG. And yes, it is of course not first priority at the very moment.

best,
Axel

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

Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 11:34:46 UTC