Dear all, Thanks Valentin: true. The evolution of RIF, how it will develop, is still subject to lots of discussion, see also http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2007/07/20/rif_wg_agrees_to_basic_logic_and_pr_dial Until RIF evolves and make these things clear, we think that the current layercake is fine by leaving doors open (without trying to read too much into a figure like that, one _cannot_ express all possible ideas and issues into a single figure.) At some point in time we may have to look at this issue again when we have a clearer image on RIF. Ivan Valentin Zacharias wrote: > John F. Sowa: > > [...] >> Unifying Logic is the framework that includes the others >> as subsets: RDF, RDF-S, Rule RIF, OWL, and SPARQL. > >> Each of these subsets is tailored for a specific kind of >> inference engine and/or a specific range of uses. What >> unifies them is the common model-theoretic semantics. >> That semantics enables all of them to interoperate on >> shared data and produce consistent results. > > RIF is a format for sharing rules created in different languages (or > dialects) and - at least according to the documents they have published [1] > - not all of these dialects are required to have a model theoretic semantic. > In their own words [1]: "A dialect is a rule language with a well-defined > syntax and semantics. This semantics must be model-theoretic, > proof-theoretic, or operational in this order of preference. " > > Which also is probably the reason for the "misplacement" of the unified > logic box - there is no (known) unifying logic for the union of these > formalisms. > > (maybe change the layer stack and replace "RIF" by "RIF core"?) > > [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-core/ > > > greetings, > > valentin > > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 09:19:47 UTC