Re: Report Now Available

The workshop report contains an impressive quantity of information...

1. I am not sure I would necessarily agree with the following
necessarily, from the report
(http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/report/):

      "...the W3C held a two-day workshop to gather data and explore
      options for establishing a standard web-based language for
      expressing rules."

Is the issue might not be "a" language", or "languages"? I believe
that the "rules" to be coped with on the Sem,antic Web call for
several, different though complementary languages,
cf. http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/15/ Thesis 1 (page 1).
In fact, the general feeling among the workshop contributors that it
is unclear "what sort of standard would satisfy a sufficient base of
users" substantiate the viewpoint that not only one rule language
would be sufficient.

2. Furthermore, I beleive that the issue is not only "expressing" but
also "processing" rules,
cf. http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/15/ Theses 5 and 6 (page
3). Arguably, rule processing is a much more difficult issue than
"expressing rules".

3. As many, I feel very uneasy with the The "95%" and "80/20 Solution"
poisition. Indeed, experiences have amply demonstrated that languages
trying/pretending to cover too many goals are not successful. Recall
Ada. I think, one should strive for complementary and inter-operable
rule languages for the Semantic Web,
cf. http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/15/ Thesis 3 (page 2).
An "all-encompassing" rule language would not only be a monster, but also
a long-term endeavour -- harming/slowing down the deployement of the
Semantic Web.


François Bry
http://rewerse.net scientific coordinator
http://www.pms.ifi.lmu.de head of unit

Received on Monday, 27 June 2005 09:52:23 UTC