- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:50:49 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: > This is an interesting issue, which I didn't notice being discussed at > the workshop. I suspect a lot of people were thinking either "of > course it'll be in [Java/RDF/XML]" (for whichever form they are used > to), or like me they thought "let's not open this can of worms yet!". The latter in my case :-) [snip] > So that's my quick analysis to get us started. What issues have I > missed? If I were dealing with Java objects or XML I think that analysis would be fine. However, in the case of supporting RDF data don't we also have to consider the semantics of the data, not just its format? If the rule language is going to be appropriate for RDF processing it probably ought to respect the semantics of things like bNodes (not to mention the open world assumption). Making a rule language based on case 3 (XML as Fundamental Data) able to correctly process RDF data would surely take more than just an XPath-friendly RDF syntax. Or maybe that's an issue you'd rather separate off? Dave
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 16:51:23 UTC