Re: [TED] Action-188, ISSUE: production rule systems have "difficulty" with recursive rules in RIF Core

> 
> 
> > > Some guidance about writing conformance clauses (which I'll re-read now)
> > > is at http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ .
> > 
> > I am not concerned with conformance clauses right now, but rather with
> > defining what might be a reasonable set of features (for lack of a better
> > word) that should allow us to call something a core or a dialect extending
> > the core.
> 
> I think the difference in what we are talking about is in the
> conformance clause -- that's why I want to focus there.
> 
> I think RIF's conformance clause will say that for a rule system to
> implement RIF it has to handle all RIF Core. 

Why should it say that? And what does it mean to "implement" RIF?

I think systems should be compliant if they provide a semantic-preserving
mapping to a RIF dialect (or dialects). That's all. Again, RIF is supposed
to be for exchange.

What is the basis for requiring your clause? Is there a theoretical
underpinning to it?


> Do you want to force all rule systems to handle full recursive Horn?  If
> RIF tries to do that, I think a lot of rule system vendors will tell us
> "no" and not adopt RIF.  It seems to set the bar too high.

See above.

> The fact that non-recursive Horn is too high a bar for non-rule database
> vendors is okay, since this is RIF not DBIF.   

DB vendors is the largest market for rules.
Any SQL database is rule-based. They just don't call them this way.


	--michael