- From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:59:26 +0100
- To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
At 12:49 PM 2/8/2006 +0100, Francois Bry wrote: >Peter has been right to state the following, I think: > >a. RIF should have a formal syntax. >b. RIF should have a formal semantics. > >IMO, the following can be added: > >1. RIF's formal semantics might, and may be should, be more abstract than >those of existing processable rule languages. Eg making it possible to >express "negation as failure" without choosing between Stable Model and >Well-Founded semsntics. > >2. RIF could allow for rules the processing of which goes beyond what >currently is widespread. Eg rules with disjunctive conclusions. Why? We do not need a rule language that covers any possible feature but one that covers 80% of the stuff that is used and useful. Notice W3C is not about standardizing research and PhD topics but rather on well -established stuff. >3. One reason for not delivering RIF with (the specification of) a >processor is that a same rule can be used in different manners, each >requiring different processors. Eg a rule stating that "all members in the >RIF WG speak English" can be used for deriving that I speak English, ie >been used as a deduction/derivation rule, or for checking if the >requirement is enmfoprced, ie been unsed as an integrity constraint. In >many practical cases, it makes very much sense to import, say >deduction/derivation rules from a context/application A, and to use them >as integrity constrainbts in a context/application B. This completely neglects the idea of defining (as a side effect) a useful rule language for the web. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/ Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8 Skype: dieterfensel
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 11:59:44 UTC