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

In my experience, the only reasonable source format for anything
RDF-related is RDF, even if that is not obvious in the beginning.
On Apr 10, 2015 4:58 AM, "Paul Tyson" <phtyson@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 19:19 +0300, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> > If you plan to transform it to SPARQL, can't you use SPIN rules instead?
> > http://spinrdf.org/spin.html#spin-rules
>
> If SPARQL were the only target, that might be an option. But it's not.
> We want a human-readable form--probably HTML. We want something that can
> be styled and presented in an editor of some sort--probably XML, in a
> lightweight browser-based editor or a thick full-featured XML editor. We
> might want to put the rules into prolog for fast reliable execution. We
> might want to run sanity checks on the rules themselves, or search
> through them for certain conditions.
>
> It's early in the design phase, but that short list of requirements
> points to something like XML as the source format.
>
> Regards,
> --Paul
>
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>