Response to BG1

From RIF
Revision as of 15:48, 25 August 2009 by Sandro Hawke (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for the comments, Ben.

While the RIF WG has no specific plans to create new dialects, we do seek "implementations" of FLD in the form of new dialect definitions that use it.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-rif-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

-The RIF WG

Benjamin Grosof wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Some comments on RIF are below.
> 
> The current specification(s) and associated documents are a good job overall.
> Let's keep up the steam in the home stretch.
> 
> More salient is that this initial step of RIF BLD/Core/PRD/FLD is important.  
> It is needed by industry, research, and the web overall.
> It is a  key step on the road to reduce fragmentation in the business rule industry and 
> semantic web/technology industry, and to have a number of benefits for customers.
> See [3] for an industry roadmap analysis I did a couple years ago on this topic.
> 
> After RIF becomes a Recommendation, there is more work to be done under the extensibility 
> framework (FLD) especially.
> 
> PRD is a good initial step but essentially has a procedural operational semantics rather 
> than declarative model-theoretic semantics, thus is
> not "fully" semantic in that sense and does not support interoperability nearly as 
> satisfactorily as logic dialects/approaches that do have such.
> 
> Notably needed in extensions (i.e., new logic dialects) under FLD are two kinds of expressive features:
> 
> 1. nonmonotonicity -- default negation, and then more expressive defaults.
> 
> 2. actions -- conclusion-triggered external procedurally attached actions, and then events too, 
> similar to those  in production rules and Event-Condition-Action rules .
>  
> In terms of "80-20" kinds of thinking, "80" percent of current and potential
> commercial applications in the business rules and semantic technology sectors need nonmonotonicity and/or actions.
> 
> These two features were identified as high priority at the time the Working Group was being chartered, 
> but have  not yet been incorporated into the Logic Dialects
> that are detailed in the current RIF specifications.
> 
> Much of the basis for such extensions under FLD is available in standardization-oriented KR 
> semantic rule designs  such as RuleML [1] and SILK [2].
> These do have fully declarative, model-theoretic semantics.
> 
> Indeed, the SILK effort by the group I lead at Vulcan is currently developing some such extensions,
> with contractor partners that include BBN Technologies, Stony Brook University, and others.
> 
> All that awaits is to get the current RIF stuff, done by the Working Group, out as an actual Recommendation.
> 
> I think we should all be looking forward to that.
> Relative quiet on the public comments etc. mailing lists mainly indicates lack of controversy, in my view.
> 
> Sincerely,
>    --Benjamin
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.ruleml.org
> 
> [2] http://silk.semwebcentral.org
> 
> [3] http://www.mit.edu/~bgrosof/#EBRC2007Talk