W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > June 2005

Re: NAF v. SNAF - where is this being addressed?

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:54:09 -0400
Message-Id: <p0620072dbee8b954530c@[]>
To: edbark@nist.gov
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org

At 16:37 -0400 6/29/05, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:


>What we do need to do is to deal with three other concerns:
>  - the relationship of rules to OWL
>  - the relationship of rules to RDF
>  - the distributed/linked ruleset

Amen to that

>>  On the other hand, if the goal is a distributed set of rules with 
>>the ability to link to other sets, reuse parts of other business 
>>processes, cut and paste one set of rules and edit for another 
>>application, etc. (which, as reflected in the OWL FAQ [1] was the 
>>hard part of going from traditional KR to OWL) then the task is 
>>harder, and NAF/SNAF in particular becomes trickier to apply and we 
>>need to be careful about how we delineate the goals.
>So we agree that addressing the issue of distributed rulesets is a 
>W3C concern that goes beyond the (planned) work of the other groups.


>The OWL FAQ to which you pointed contains this observation about KR 
>for the Semantic Web:
>>  [OWL] uses the linking provided by RDF to add the following
>>  capabilities to ontologies:
>>    * Ability to be distributed across many systems
>>    * Scalable to Web needs
>>    * Compatible with Web standards for accessibility and
>>  internationalization.
>>    * Open and extensible
>[Scalable to Web needs is a ringer.  The interpreting engine has to 
>access, and potentially use every element of, the distributed 
>resource, and scalability is about the limits of that engine.  The 
>W3C role is about distribution, access standards, and extensibility.]

scalable doesn't necessarily mean all processing on all stuff must be 
sub-linear, but rather that there is a way to get the "network 
effect" of point at each others reps and the like - but point well 

>Yes, we can and should do this for Rules.  It is a useful enabler.
>What it enables may be analogous to giving a child an automatic 
>weapon, but that is the subject of a different diatribe. ;-)

yup, but then so is most Web stuff, and it doesn't seem to have been 
too bad so far (well, unless you're anti-porn, but let's not go there)

>>   btw, I think the jury is still out as to whether a Web Rules 
>>Language or a Semantic Web Rules Language is preferable and to be 
>>chartered - but if it is the latter, we have to resolve what we're 
>>trying to do more carefully.

again Amen

>I would be happy to leave the Web Rules Language -- the exchange of 
>a closed body of rules -- to the RuleML and PRR folk, but I think 
>W3C would have to build on that to do the distributed and extensible 
>part. So it would be good to work together from this point on. 
>Further I think we really need to talk about the relationship to OWL 
>ontologies and perhaps to ISO CL.  (I would like to avoid the 
>UML/OCL mistake of having unconnected semantic models for two 

again we're tracking -- I sent some use cases to this efffect to 
another list, let me get them and duplicate it here (next message)

>FTR, I think the jury is still out on whether OWL is really a 
>Semantic Web Language for distributed, extensible ontologies or just 
>a lingua franca ("Web language") for DL+ ontologies.  So far, all I 
>see is the latter, but OWL is young, and you have to have respected 
>reference ontologies before anyone else can use them.

I don't see how you can possibly say that, but then I guess the way I 
use OWL is different than most peoples -- but play with SWOOP for a 
while, where everything is hyperlinked and the like, load a couple of 
ontologies and link them -- if you're looking for some good reference 
ontologies, I'd direct you to the life sciences - NCI, OBO, the newer 
GO stuff -- lots of OWL starting to grow out there.  It's early, but 
it is growing.
p.s. Any web language starts being used mostly local, and the links 
grow as things find each other and find use...

Professor James Hendler			  Director
Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery	  	  301-405-2696
UMIACS, Univ of Maryland			  301-314-9734 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20742	 		  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 20:54:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:09:19 UTC