Chris, (01)
Snipping past most of your post to reach your comments on Rule
Interchange Format group: (02)
<snip> (03)
>You have provided no rigorous demonstration of the limitations, so what
>you are saying is idle chatter until you provide one. And as I've
>already noted, W3C itself recognizes the expressive limitations of OWL.
>This has led to the development of RuleML and SWRL, and is also a driver
>behind the newly formed Rule Interchange Format group
>(http://www.w3.org/2005/rules).
>
>
>
What I find curious about the Rule Interchange Format activity at the
W3C is that the posted use cases look like topic map use cases, for
which there already exists an ISO standard, ISO 13250. While the charter
is obviously a summary document, one would expect acknowledgement of
prior work in an area with some explanation of why it was unsuitable
before undertaking a duplication of prior work. (04)
My impression from reading the charter document is that the results of
the activity have to be backwards compatible with RDF/OWL. (05)
Does anyone else share that impression? (06)
Hope everyone is having a great day/evening depending upon your location! (07)
Patrick (08)
--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 (09)
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (011)
|