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

> 
> 
> > Yes. Originally our (WSMO&RuleML) understanding was that the intent was to
> > start developing a language of rules for the Web, and two months ago we
> > sent a proposal for a WG charter (to a limited number of W3C people). I am
> > surprised that you haven't seen it, but I am pretty sure that Sandro
> > did see it.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, this draft charter proposal was completely ignored, and
> > there was not even a peep in response.
> 
> I'm mortified.  I was able to find it, now, in my mailbox, but I never
> noticed it at the time.  (It didn't get lost in spam, it got lost in a
> pile of important work-related e-mail that I never got back to.)  I'm
> so sorry for the confusion and wasted work this loss in communication
> has caused, all around.

Sandro,

Sorry for assuming the worst. I understand that you are swamped with all
kinds of email. But Said sent it to several W3C people and he got no
responses. Since he was your co-chair at the workshop, it did look strange.
But, of course, work, summer, and all take their toll.


	regards
	  --michael  


> I don't think that draft is aimed quite right for the larger W3C
> membership -- too much Logic Programming and too little Business Rules
> -- but it would have made a good starting point.
> 
> > RuleML people have realized that there can't be a single super-language
> > into which everything can be translated with the same semantics. So, their
> > approach is that the semantics rests with the rules languages and RuleML
> > defines their XML serializations.
> > 
> > The dream of being able to take any rule-based language, map it into a
> > "superlanguage", push through the wire, and then map it to a different
> > rules language at the other end of the wire (with an equivalent semantics)
> > is a pipe dream - unachievable. At least, not through FOL. So, RuleML takes
> > a more pragmatic approach.
> 
> This needs to be explored more, but we can do that in one of the
> threads where the argument is being made in detail.
> 
> > The only way heterogeneous rule languages can be exchanged as envisioned by
> > the W3C charter is if we limit the rule sets to those that are equivalent
> > to Horn rules.  This, IMO, has very limited usefulness.
> 
> I'm (obviously) not yet convinced that's the only way, although coming
> out of the workshop I thought that was at least our best bet.
> 
>       -- sandro
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rule-workshop-discuss/2005Aug/0043
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 04:09:14 UTC