- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:35:04 -0400
- To: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
> On 15 Apr 2008, at 18:07, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> >
> >
> > We have some new drafts from the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working
> > Group. While the group is not targeted at producing a "Semantic Web
> > Rule Language", its output will cover much of the same space. I
> > suggest
> > anyone interested in rule languages (especially from a web
> > perspective)
> > take a look at what RIF is doing and send comments:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/ (our first RIF dialect, Horn with
> > Equality)
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-fld/ (framework for more logic dialects)
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ (how to use BLD with RDF, OWL-DL,
> > OWL-Full)
>
> I'm more-or-less ignorant of the technical issues here, but at a
> surface level the presentation syntax given in example 2 of the FLD
> appears to have some arbitrary differences from SPARQL, eg the use of
> abbr expands into uri
> instead of
> PREFIX abbr: <uri>
> and the use of ()s for grouping, as opposed to {}s, and some of the
> operators being prefix and some being infix.
>
> There may well be cultural reasons for this syntax, but I expect many
> people to want to work with both syntaxes, and some commonality might
> be helpful in reducing the learning curve.
Thanks, Steve. I'm inclinded to agree with you (not surprisingly). I
will be interested to see how the WG discussion on this goes. Would you
mind sending this comment to the comments lists [1] to help motivate and
guide that discussion? If you have the time to flesh it out a little --
maybe to a specific list of changes which would provide good alignment?
-- we'd appreciate it. (Other folks are welcome to do the same, of
course.)
-- Sandro
[1] public-rif-comments@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 11:36:26 UTC