terraces: Planet of french bloggers dealing with semantic web
karlUshi: related to the discussion with danc
timbl: Rules have been on the semantic web roadmap for years and years, don't know why the blogger opines "W3C felt rules weren't needed in semantic web". The fact that the roadmap has taken years to get through , maybe. Maybe the decision to do things in order, and to try to make a consistent architecture for data, ontology, query and rules.
danbri: Anyone who talks about W3C like it's a single thing with beliefs and desires, ... has a messed up worldview and will be repeatedly suprised. W3C is a community, an organisation, and a space for getting work done. It's not a person. It doesn't "feel" anything about rules, or "finally realise" things about querying. It issues publications and hosts workshops and discussions and runs up a...
bijan: Anyone who gets all pedantic about using person-talk about an organization, then calls an organization a "space", might want to throw only pumice stones. ;)
danbri: I mean there are a bunch of metaphors that you can try on, for thinking about what W3C is, ... all of which are healthier to think with than "W3C=person". By healthier, ... I mean, will lead to fewer suprises.
bijan: Well, I was joking, but this doesn't seem responsive. I don't agree with a lot of his post (esp. about rules and the value of RuleML) but thinks that "rules could have been cheaply standardized in 2000/1 by grabbing RuleML, yet the W3C didn't do that".
bijan: I don't think there's any specific confusion evident. He thinks the W3C qua organization has/has had some silly priorities from his point of view and that now that they've gotten round to rules, he has no faith that the organization has changes to allow for (what he sees as) success.
bijan: I mean, the dude is confused, no doubt. ("...hurried to get SPARQL out..."...uh, still working on it :)). And assimlating RuleML to CLIPS is actually quite confused.
bijan: Furthermore, he clearly is focused on production rules, and I don't see that any semweb people or production rule people (at least on the RIF) see production rules as a foudation for semantic web rules (per se).
bijan: And, really, if you are going to pick on typos/thinkos/metaphoros, shouldn't you pick on "As far back as 2001, Harold boley, benjamin grosof and said tabet of RuleML tried to donate RuleML to semantic web." s/semantic web/w3c/
bijan: Actually, I never thought RuleML had a shot as the basis of W3C semweb rule languges because I thought that the W3C shunned these sorts of "framework" approaches
bijan: Seems much more standard to pick a winner and then force everyone to "interoperate" by either adopting the winner or translating into it.
bijan: And yet, here is the RIF.
danbri: Anyone who talks about W3C like it's a single thing with beliefs and desires, ... has a messed up worldview and will be repeatedly suprised. W3C is a community, an organisation, and a space for getting work done. It's not a person. It doesn't "feel" anything about rules, or "finally realise" things about querying. It issues publications and hosts workshops and discussions and runs up a...
bijan: Anyone who gets all pedantic about using person-talk about an organization, then calls an organization a "space", might want to throw only pumice stones. ;)
danbri: I mean there are a bunch of metaphors that you can try on, for thinking about what W3C is, ... all of which are healthier to think with than "W3C=person". By healthier, ... I mean, will lead to fewer suprises.
bijan: Well, I was joking, but this doesn't seem responsive. I don't agree with a lot of his post (esp. about rules and the value of RuleML) but thinks that "rules could have been cheaply standardized in 2000/1 by grabbing RuleML, yet the W3C didn't do that".
bijan: I don't think there's any specific confusion evident. He thinks the W3C qua organization has/has had some silly priorities from his point of view and that now that they've gotten round to rules, he has no faith that the organization has changes to allow for (what he sees as) success.
bijan: I mean, the dude is confused, no doubt. ("...hurried to get SPARQL out..."...uh, still working on it :)). And assimlating RuleML to CLIPS is actually quite confused.
bijan: Furthermore, he clearly is focused on production rules, and I don't see that any semweb people or production rule people (at least on the RIF) see production rules as a foudation for semantic web rules (per se).
bijan: And, really, if you are going to pick on typos/thinkos/metaphoros, shouldn't you pick on "As far back as 2001, Harold boley, benjamin grosof and said tabet of RuleML tried to donate RuleML to semantic web." s/semantic web/w3c/
bijan: Actually, I never thought RuleML had a shot as the basis of W3C semweb rule languges because I thought that the W3C shunned these sorts of "framework" approaches
bijan: Seems much more standard to pick a winner and then force everyone to "interoperate" by either adopting the winner or translating into it.
bijan: And yet, here is the RIF.