- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:35:04 -0400
- To: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
> On 15 Apr 2008, at 18:07, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > > > > > We have some new drafts from the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working > > Group. While the group is not targeted at producing a "Semantic Web > > Rule Language", its output will cover much of the same space. I > > suggest > > anyone interested in rule languages (especially from a web > > perspective) > > take a look at what RIF is doing and send comments: > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/ (our first RIF dialect, Horn with > > Equality) > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-fld/ (framework for more logic dialects) > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ (how to use BLD with RDF, OWL-DL, > > OWL-Full) > > I'm more-or-less ignorant of the technical issues here, but at a > surface level the presentation syntax given in example 2 of the FLD > appears to have some arbitrary differences from SPARQL, eg the use of > abbr expands into uri > instead of > PREFIX abbr: <uri> > and the use of ()s for grouping, as opposed to {}s, and some of the > operators being prefix and some being infix. > > There may well be cultural reasons for this syntax, but I expect many > people to want to work with both syntaxes, and some commonality might > be helpful in reducing the learning curve. Thanks, Steve. I'm inclinded to agree with you (not surprisingly). I will be interested to see how the WG discussion on this goes. Would you mind sending this comment to the comments lists [1] to help motivate and guide that discussion? If you have the time to flesh it out a little -- maybe to a specific list of changes which would provide good alignment? -- we'd appreciate it. (Other folks are welcome to do the same, of course.) -- Sandro [1] public-rif-comments@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 11:37:28 UTC