Re: RIF a failure? (WAS: Question on dereferenceable RIF rules)

On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 08:45 +0100, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I've heard something about executive mandates and scarce resources
affecting the delivered RIF products.

Be that as it may, say I'm a system architect faced with the problem of
handling complex business rules around some bunch of domain data. I
choose RIF, largely because of the "I": it allows  business users to
view and modify the rules using an XML-based interface, and we can
develop generic programs to transform it to SPARQL or prolog for
execution in a variety of contexts. You get all the goodness of RDF and
XML, and the associated technology stacks, for free.

What am I missing that hundreds of other system architects get who
aren't making this choice?


Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 14:00:15 UTC