Re: RIF vs Rule Language

>> On 8 Dec 2005, at 14:49, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>>> While I believe, like you, that tehre may be the necessity of  
>>> different behaviours of reasoners, this can only be justified by  
>>> the existence of different semantics for the same rule constructs.
>>
>> Do you mean that, for such a case, we should provide 2 different  
>> syntactic constructs to make this difference explicit? For example  
>> "implies1" for horn rules without contraposition and "implies2"  
>> for horn rules with contraposition?
>
> Or you could have a flag for the whole document which one could  
> override at one's own risk.

Well, if it is "at one's own risk", then anything can be overridden :-)
Anyway, the option to override assumes that we have the possibility  
of distinguishing the operators and their semantics upfront; we may  
then decide to ignore such distinction at our own risk.
--e.