Re: Comments on * DRAFT * Rules Working Group Charter $Revision: 1.60 $

Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.ie>:
 >> 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

: Christian de Sainte Marie 
<<mailto:csma@ilog.fr?Subject=Re:%20Comments%20on%20*%20DRAFT%20*%20Rules%20Working%20Group%20Charter%20%24Revision:%20%20%20%201.60%20%24&In-Reply-To=%3C430B632B.1030308@ilog.fr%3E&References=%3C430B632B.1030308@ilog.fr%3E>csma@ilog.fr> 

 >Indeed, I think that it is a very important feature of the charter that
 >it does not choose a rule language paradigm.

Sorry, I really struggle with my limitations in the English language. I 
wanted to
say that the charter does not refer to any nor THE rule paradigm by its 
choice of FOL
with multiple model semantics. I do not know one rule languages that is 
committed
to such a paradigm. All the rule languages I know define a computational subset
of FOL (syntactically) and identify a certain model as semantics (and 
differ here from
FOL in the case of negation). I do not have any glue how it should work to 
force
these languages to map in and out into a different formalism with different 
semantics.
On the one hand, it may be interesting research but I have serious doubt 
whether a
W3C working group is the proper setting for research beyond the proven 
state of art.
On the other hand, it is not that difficult to identify something around 
Horn logic
with a minimal model as common ground of state of the art rule languages.

         -- dieter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/
Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 20:12:35 UTC