Rules WG -- filling a much needed gap?

At 17:35 07/11/03 -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>As Dan Brickley mentioned, we've been working on a Rules charter, too.
>Here it is:
>
>        http://www.w3.org/2003/10/swre578
>        (currently at revision 1.24)

I've been uneasily reading the thread emanating from this, and a comment 
from Jeen Broekstra [1] crystalized my concerns:

[[
... the charter seems very open ...
]]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Nov/0048.html
(even though that comment was about the proposed query WG charter;  I have 
similar concerns about a standard for query.)

I think it's too soon to be trying to standardize a "one true rules language".

My experience of standardization efforts is that they work best when the 
goal is clearly visible.  Standardizing a general RDF rules language could, 
I fear, be a tarpit project which becomes bogged down by (legitimate) 
competing views and interests.

I'm also not clear about what is the near-term case for an interoperable 
rules language.  It seems that the greater need is to make continued 
progress on deploying interoperable data upon which such languages may 
operate.

I think there's plenty of scope for useful work in the area of RDF rules, 
I'm just unsure about early standardization.

If there really is a strong desire to proceed with a standardization 
effort, I would suggest dramatically narrowing the scope (e.g. to 
standardize a format for simple rules based on Horn Clauses), and, if 
necessary, chartering multiple efforts to deal with other requirements.

My apologies for striking a negative note.  I'll shut up now.

#g
--

At 17:35 07/11/03 -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>As Dan Brickley mentioned, we've been working on a Rules charter, too.
>Here it is:
>
>        http://www.w3.org/2003/10/swre578
>        (currently at revision 1.24)
>
>It's still rough in places, but I think it gets the point across.
>Wording suggestions are welcome, as are questions about what is meant
>by some section or phrase.
>
>What Dan Brickley said applies here, too:
>
>        Did I mention yet that it is an *early* *draft*? For
>        **discussion**? Nothing is set in stone. Specifically, we
>        haven't proposed anything yet to W3C's Advisory Committee, and
>        they've not approved anything.
>
>        [The draft] will quite possibly change over the coming weeks,
>        so please be sure to cite the $Revision number from the
>        'Status' section.
>
>I'll try to follow any discussion between now and the 20th, and update
>the document as necessary.
>
>      -- sandro

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 10:18:12 UTC