- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:14:18 -0400
- To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
I think you meant to send this to public-rif-wg@w3.org, Francois. -- Sandro > Dear All, > > This is a try to clarify issues discussed today as well as again and > again in the past. In my opinion, we rurgently need an agreement on the > following: > > 1. Data (with their semantics) RIF is to access. In my opinion: RDF, XML > and OWL -- and I would stronlgy suggest Topic Maps as well. > > 2. What means "rule" for RIF. In my opinion, "deduction rules", > "normative ruyles" (aka integrity constraints), and "reactive rules" (or > ECA rules = Event-Condition-Action rules). > ECA rule include but are not limited to production rules. Events are > needed for an exchange of reactive behaviour between nodes in a > distributed context like the Web. > > 3. Semantics requirement for RIF: In my opinion, a declarative semantics > is needed in the first place but no procedural semantics. This would > leave interesting questions like termination (in certain cases) open. In > my opinion, many of these questions could be resolved without specifying > a full-fledged procedural semantics. And if some questions are left > open, the RIF would still be very usefull in practice. > > François > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 17:14:29 UTC