This talk is http://www.w3.org/2005/12/rif/charter-overview
Charter is http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter
So what do we do?
. Relative easy stuff; get it done and move on.
"FOL", "LP", Reflection, XML Data, Actions, Aggregation, etc, etc
Deliverables
More tomorrow
Interoperation with the most widely deployed technologies will be crucial for obtaining the desired standardization effect.
Users like their current tools; let's not require them to change
Let's not:
The Resource Description Framework (RDF) allows data to be transferred while keeping its semantic structure. As such, its design has considerable overlap with the condition/fact part of a rule language; both are ways of formally expressing propositions. In order to reduce unnecessary re-invention and incompatibilities, the Working Group must use the RDF Semantics as a starting point in the areas of overlap, justifying and agreeing to any variation.
The OWL Web Ontology Language allows users to express certain kinds of knowledge and it is suited to certain efficient kinds of reasoning. Some users at the workshop reported that while OWL was useful, they needed additional expressiveness, preferably in the form of rules. It is important that the Working Group maintain compatibility with OWL, allowing knowledge expressed in OWL and in rules to be easily used together.
Deliverables: A W3C Recommendation on using this rule interchange format in combination with OWL. This document is needed to help show implementors and advanced users how these technologies overlap and the advantages and limitations around using them together. This document must clearly state which features of OWL can be mapped to (or otherwise interoperate with) Phase 1 rules and which cannot, and software using this mapping must be demonstrated during interoperability testing. The document may also discuss rule language extensions to cover the excluded OWL features.
There is overlap in scope between the groups, and they share the goal of rule interoperability. We expect a useful division of labor as OMG focuses on the standard metamodel definition and modeling of production rules, while this group focusses on a rule interchange format suitable for the Web. This Working Group should avoid barriers to interoperability between these areas, and must appoint a liaison to work with OMG and its PRR core metamodel to maximize the value of these standards efforts in both groups. The Working Group is encouraged to produce a document like the OWL compatibility document showing how these standards work together.
