RE: [UCR] ISSUE-12 and ACTION6198

1. For those of us who are outside of past W3C debates on the issue of "what is a standard W3C Semantic Web rule language", does anyone have any pointers / links as to why other attempts at this (RuleML? SWRL? Etc) have failed.

If RIF is to be a (set of) standard semantic web rule languages, I'd love to know the reasons why previous attempts have failed, and how they could be overcome (in RIF). 

2. For this subgoal (using any of the definitions mentioned in Christian's email), should there not be a subgroup of RIF for those who have particular interests with this, who can explain the requirements of a semantic web rule language where they differ from rule interchange? I suspect this subgoal has already been directing some of the reasoning of the members, and it would be healthy to be able to separate out these requirements so they can be costed and prioritised accordingly (eg where they extend the cost of rule interchange in an unreasonable way, or simplify rule interchange in a useful way). This subgroup could also explain how the semantic web + RIF-as-a-rule-language could support / represent the current use cases, which would be really useful to advance their case.

3. I support Christian's proposal, and would be interested to hear arguments against it.

Cheers

Paul Vincent
TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christian de Sainte Marie
Sent: 20 December 2006 16:39
To: RIF WG
Subject: [UCR] ISSUE-12 and ACTION6198


Issue 12 [1] is the proposal to make an explicit goal of the WG that 
"RIF should form a useful basis for a core semantic web rule language 
(or small number of such)." (DaveR proposes: "RIF should be usable as 
the basis for a Semantic Web rule language" [2]).

I have an action to propose text representing my position as a 
counter-proposal (ACTION-198 [3]).

Here is the text I propose:
----------------------------------
PROPOSED - The RIF WG will define a small number of standard dialects. 
Although the design goal of each dialect will be rule interchange, any
or all of these dialects may be considered standard semantic web rule 
languages.
----------------------------------

Actually, this text is mostly attributable to ChrisW. During a 
discussion we had where I was trying to make my position clear to Sandro 
and him, he proposed:
<<The RIF WG will define a small number of standard dialects.  Although
the primary design goal of each dialect will be rule interchange, any
or all of these dialects may be considered standard semantic web rule 
languages.>>

I leave to you to find what is the difference and why I could not agree 
on Chris's text (Chris forbade me to explain :-)

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/12
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0024.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/198

Christian

Received on Tuesday, 26 December 2006 21:35:02 UTC