I think question that has been raised here is very valid and it can lead to many discussions. After reading this mail I want to say following things
1) In your last mail you have raised question about the need for rule translations and for that the point given was that we need a central rule standard and till the time everyone stick to this central standard , translations will play vital role. Even you seem to agree to the notion of the central standard.
2) Now the question raised in this mail is whether the central standard should have XML or KIF syntax. I think even this an interesting question. To my mind its answer lies in the answer of why wide proliferation of Java as compared to Prolog/Lisp. I might be wrong.
But what I think is the issue of syntax of central standard is different from need of rule translations.
Thank you.
Regards,
Mahesh Gandhe
Joe Kopena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
Jirtme BERNARD wrote:
> The reason was that we were in need of having marketing guys writing
> rules...
> And asking some marketing guys to write some Jess code would have been
> non-sense. Our XML format was really simple and we wrote a small GUI on
> top of it that allowed easily to create/modify/delete rules.
So for you in particular because you mentioned putting a GUI on top of
it, as well as for the other people who responded about this, why XML?
If there's a GUI for it then it might as well be Jess underneath, it's
obscured. Arguably, simple Jess code has a much cleaner form than any
XML document is going to have, especially if you start working
procedural code into the right hand side. Certainly I don't buy that
everyone's interested in XML because they want to embed the stuff into
webpages, as Semantic Web peo! ple would put forth as a pro-XML argument.
The parsing argument doesn't really fly for me either; LISP/KIF-styled
languages (as Jess clearly is, unless ejfried objects) are almost
inarguably easier to parse than XML documents and the quantitave
argument that there are more XML parsers than KIFish parsers is weak in
light of qualitative advantages (to my mind at least).
My concern stems from core skepticisms in some of my own Semantic-Web
related work, which in part comes down to: Why XML (and RDF & DAML, etc)
now and not KIF (and subsets of KIF) 20 years ago? To make it more on
topic, why not a subset of KIF to exchange rules instead of RuleML? Is
there a substantial argument there, or is it just the result of a large
group of people (eg: W3C) realizing the power of knowledge
representation and insisting on using their own formats instead of
established mechanisms (ironically, not following standards)?
--
! - joe kopena
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
(use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
