- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 08:45:48 +0100
- To: Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
On 09/04/15 02:28, Paul Tyson wrote: > On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 22:33 +0100, Dave Reynolds wrote: > >> I think there are lots of reasons RIF is a failure, and lots of history >> behind that, but I doubt that the lack of single rule import is really a >> significant part of that. >> > > First time I've seen that stated publicly, but I have noticed the > deafening silence around RIF. Simply a personal observation, not in any way representing W3C or any other RIF contributor. > Of the rule languages I've looked at (RuleML, Common Logic, SWRL, > prolog, SBVR), RIF has the best design, easiest on-ramp, and most > versatility. Sure, no technical criticism implied. > Why do you say "failure", and what "history" do you speak of? By "failure" I meant "apparent failure to be used widely", which is kind of the purpose of standards. Why its use hasn't really taken off, and the background to how it came out the way it did, would be fine discussion topics for over a beer. Dave
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 07:46:20 UTC