additional rule requirements/objectives

From: Mike Dean ([email protected])
Date: 06/30/03

Next message: Mike Dean: "Re: notes from today's JC telecon on rules roadmap and explicit equality and semantics"

Previous message: Mike Dean: "rule test cases"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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:
  explanation/justification)

  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.

Thanks!

	Mike

[1] http://www.isi.edu/~stefan/rules/20030325/

Next message: Mike Dean: "Re: notes from today's JC telecon on rules roadmap and explicit equality and semantics"
Previous message: Mike Dean: "rule test cases"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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