- From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:35:04 -0800
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- CC: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>, Patrick Albert <palbert@ilog.fr>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
My view is that the phrase "external object model" is a misleading . It is more accurate to think of importing an XML document or a java object graph. Import defines a mapping between the external syntax and the RIF syntax. With a standard mapping and a standard RIF semantics you get a standard semantics for importing the external syntax. We can't map everything from an XML document or a java object graph into Core but at least we can map objects with slots, membership, and subclass. Put another way: if you want to exchange rules using a fancy external data model, you need to figure out how to map it to your RIF dialect in a standard way. Michael Kifer wrote: > ok. But I am trying to make this more concrete so that we'll understand. > I would like things to be expressed in the context of RIF-Core and of the > concrete problem for which Gary was seeking a solution. > > I don't see how Java objects and external schemas relate to allowing # and ## > in RIF-Core facts. I would like to see a clarification from you on that issue > and Gary's view. > > michael > > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:22:50 +0100 > Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote: > > >> Paul Vincent wrote: >> >>> Christian's comment is simply (?) that RIF needs to play well alongside >>> externally-defined fact definitions (for example external Java object >>> models used to define production rules in BREs). >>> >> Thanx for translating from the csma-ese, Paul :-) >> >> >>> Maybe the qu is whether it is compulsory that all relevant facts and >>> class relationships need to be represented in RIF for RIF rules to be >>> defined against them? >>> >> It is compulsory that they need be representable; so, yes, they could be represented. >> >> But it is not compulsory that they be represented, as far as I understand. >> >> That is, by the way, what I understand Gary says in his reply to you [1], and this is, anyway, what I have been trying to say all along. >> >> >>> Or have I missed the point (again)? :) >>> >> I do not think so. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Christian >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0127.html >> >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 07:36:16 UTC