Re: SeRQL an RDF rule language: scoping Rules vs Query in W3C work

On 2003-11-05 20:12, "ext Bill de hÓra" <dehora@eircom.net> wrote:

> 
> Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> 
>> I agree with Jeen's points below.
>> 
>> To add my own 2 cents, I'd also like to see query and rules solutions
>> for RDF expressed *in* RDF.
> 
> I'm not sure how that would be done in RDF as it stands, given its
> expressive power, but it seems like a nice thing to have.

For query, it's pretty straightforward.

For rules, there'd have to be a way to "quote" or "escape" portions
so that they are not asserted unintentionally.

> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> It also alleviates the need to learn/parse/support yet another syntax,
>> and allows one to reason about queries and rules just like any other
>> knowledge expressed in RDF.
> 
> Not neccessarily. You could imagine a concrete query syntax for RDF
> that was different to current formats. In fact I'd want syntax
> that made queries and rules fun to write - the bar should be set
> very high for usable syntax, especially for query. There's a  lot to
> be learned from efforts like the RNG compact syntax, or XPath.

By "in RDF" I don't necessarily mean "in RDF/XML". I'm all for
easy to use alternative syntaxes that one can type with minimal
effort.

> If these efforts are conjoined I would still like to have specs that
> allow me to write a conformant rules engine if all I need is a rules
> engine, without having to implement  a query engine, or vice versa.
> If they're not kept apart for implementation, they become mutual
> barriers to entry.

I was not advocating that query and rules be inseparable, and I agree
fully that one should be able to implement/support/use one and not
the other.

Patrick

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 08:52:19 UTC