Response to GL1
Revision as of 20:11, 24 August 2009 by ChrisWelty
Thank you for the feedback!
-The RIF WG
Georg Lausen wrote: > Hi, > > > I am the head of the Database and Information Systems group at the > University of Freiburg in Germany. We have been working with rule > technologies since many years. We have been implementing full F-Logic > and applied the resulting Florid system for data integration, web data > extraction and for the implementation of workflows. We have learned that > specifying rules with a certain semantics in mind and to evaluate them > is not the same thing. One has to observe that rule engines may have > subtle differences in semantics even when syntax is identical. What has > been missing for all the years is a layer of neutralization which makes > it possible to clearly decide on the semantics of rule programs with > respect to different rule languages and rule systems. > > I am now glad to see that the RIF initiative was successful to fill > exactly this gap. They cover the whole range of rule languages between > those having a foundation in mathematical logic and those being based on > the production rule paradigm. The evolution of the semantic web is given > profound attention by clarifying the compatibility between ontologies > based on RDF and OWL on one side and rule languages on the other. > > I expect that the RIF Framework for Logic Dialects (RIF FLD) will > amplify recent efforts on the integration of languages based on OWL > using open world semantics with deductive rule languages using closed > world semantics, as well as the efforts of the development of a logical > basis for production rule languages. We are now motivated to investigate > ways to built a rule language on top of SPARQL. I am convinced that RIF > FLD will give us the needed framework to start. > > The RIF working group is doing a great job and I wish them all the > necessary support they need to continue their successful path.