additional rule requirements/objectives

From: Mike Dean (
Date: 06/30/03

  • Next message: Mike Dean: "Re: notes from today's JC telecon on rules roadmap and explicit equality and semantics"
    A number of topics have come up in recent discussions that I
    think should be added to our Requirements and Use Cases
    document [1]:
      support for n-ary relations
      support for ordered and/or unordered rule terms
      URI naming of rules (motivation:
      local predicate names (motivation: integration with
      existing rule systems)
      consistency/compatibility with DQL ([1] talks only about
      using rules with DQL)
      presentation syntax (motivation:  usability)
      formal semantics
        compatibility with RDF(S) and OWL
    In the absence of an unassigned category, I'd suggest making
    each of these an objective, and "promoting" some of them to
    requirements as we agree that they are critical.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/30/03 EST