- From: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:49:28 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, www-rdf-rules@w3.org, Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>, edbark@nist.gov, Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Sandro -- At 01:39 AM 8/23/2005 -0400, you wrote: >We're talking about one language which is a superset of many of the >common languages, so it can be used as an interlingua. You translate >your ruleset into it, and if you can translate it back out into >another vendor's language (because it has enough features), your rules >will mean the same thing. Unfortunately, it makes no sense to translate rulesets from one vendor's language into another [1]. This is because the results you get from running rules depend on which variation of which kind of engine is used. So, your rules will regrettably *not* "mean the same thing" in another vendor's system. One can visualize acres of list discussions of the form "were you using Jena 1.5.4.3.2a with the 5.2.1.3.4 fix to backward chaining engine with mysql semi-persistence to get the result that George Washington is the current president of the US?" Why not start small, with something that works? Recommend a way in which diverse rule systems can interoperate at the input-output level, e.g. as in [1]. Once you get that going, there will be practical reasons for a few engine behaviors (aka "semantics") to emerge as ones that can usefully be the subject of the next recommendation. HTH, Cheers, -- Adrian [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19/ INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC (R) Online at www.reengineeringllc.com Adrian Walker Reengineering LLC PO Box 1412 Bristol CT 06011-1412 USA Phone: USA 860 583 9677 Cell: USA 860 830 2085 Fax: USA 860 314 1029
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 11:51:42 UTC