W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Rules WG -- draft charter

From: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:06:08 +0000
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2u159u473.fsf@evila.danbri.org>

Hash: SHA1

Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> writes:

>> 1. Who wrote this draft? Might be a useful addition. (Entirely
>> possible I missed attribution).
> No, I left it out on purpose, because it's really a complex
> collaboration (sounds nicer than "mish-mash") from the W3C Team,
> trying to be true to what everyone seemed to want, but not everyone
> who contributed got to see the changes I made before making it public,
> so I can't really put their names on it.   Or something like that.  I
> took the last editing pass, so any blame goes to me.   

I guessed as much :-) I was just interested.


>> 4. 2.4 Standard Library. log:semantics and the document() function - I
>> think that needs plenty of justification. In XML contexts I see the
>> need - referencing distinct documents - but in RDF documents are
>> a pretty vague concept, and anyway RDF is trivial to merge
>> and that can be done prior to applying rules.
> We've made some good use of log:semantics in programming projects near
> cwm.  And of course most (all?) Prologs have builtins for reading
> files.  But I hear that needs to be explained better -- especially why
> there should be a builtins for reading RDF and Rules sources seperate
> from builtins for reading arbitrary sources.

Sure. I didn't mean to suggest it wasn't useful - you want something
to reason /about/, otherwise life becomes rather dull. I guess my
question is: is the rdf rule WG going to produce simply a means to
express rules, or something more like a rules programming language (a
la prolog, N3)?

OTOH I can see the need in the proof/justifcation language (perhaps
'diagnostic' since the former terms are so fraught with controversy).

>      -- sandro

Thanks Sandro,

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 08:09:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:46:16 UTC