- From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:00:52 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: edbark@nist.gov,public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
At 13:10 22.08.2005 -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>The only thing I'd avoid on this list are points like:
>
> > These languages are neither
> > justified by a proven body of research nor by a body of implemented
> > reasoners nor industrial experience. It is quite hard to understand why
> W3C
> > wants to commit to such enterprises?
>
>Maybe I'm reading that text incorrectly, but I think it's an argument
>that it would be best for the W3C to take a particular course of
>action. And *that* kind of argument really belongs in the advisory
>committee (probably *after* any technical disagreements are made very
>clear) because such decisions are their territory.
>
>I'm working on a reply to your e-mail in which I try to isolate the
>technical elements, as I understand them.
>
> -- sandro
Dear Sandro,
yes you are right. Still what I really wanted to say with this is the
following:
I expected W3C to define a charter for a rule language whereas the current
charter is from my point of view either
- technically wrong, since it does not choose a rule language paradigm
- administratively wrong, since an approach to develop a full-fledged
first-order language for the web is wrongly called a rule language
working
group.
Doing the latter is fine from my point of view (besides the wrong naming) but
would leave the need for an additional effort around a realistic rule
language for
the web. So I am a bit lost whether it is a technical or an administrative
dispute.
-- dieter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/
Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8
Received on Monday, 22 August 2005 18:03:33 UTC