- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:03:07 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
> From my (weak) understanding of business rule languages they seem to > include clearly non-monotonic notions like default rules and can depend on > the engine's operational semantics. A requirement to losslessly interchange > such rules seems hard to square with beyond-OWL-KR. Business Rules are sold largely on their declarative nature. While it's possible to use most BR languages as convoluted programming languages, that use is generally seen as harmful. I think we'll get consensus on relegating such features to vendor-specific extensions. > > Have you done the mental diff between that and the draft?) > > Clearly huge. We are a long way from FOL-with-equality, that's just nowhere > near our design centre. Amongst other things we've dodged the hardest > issues by only supporting negation over existential data. > > I guess conversion of Jena rules out to the FOL proposal wouldn't be so bad > except for those cases where rules depend on our operational semantics, but > you wouldn't expect to be able to interchange those anyway. There's > quantification over predicates but hi-log syntax or representing rdf data > by rdf(s,p,o) rather than p(s,o) would handle that. So it's not really that big, right, as long as you don't try to make it complete? I'm still a little confused about how to handle your last point, but I think the WG can figure out something. -- sandro
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 18:03:20 UTC