- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:59:33 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Steve Harris wrote:
>
> 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.
You know, I was thinking just the same thing as I saw some XQuery and
SPARQL alongside each other. It would be really lovely if SPARQL and RIF
could share at least some common syntax. My brain is filling up rapidly
with all these variations...
Dan
--
http://danbri.org/
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 12:00:11 UTC