- From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:02:15 +0100
- To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>,public-rif-wg@w3.org
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
1) Why does a request for integrity constraints imply the request for disjunctive consequents? 2) You propose to restrict disjunctive consequences to integrity constraints? 3) What is the computational complexity of disjunctive consequences (answer set programming) compared with standard approaches in rule languages? At 09:04 09.02.2006 +0100, Francois Bry wrote: >Vincent, Paul D wrote: > >>Another way of looking at this / let me infer: the commercial inference >>engines that do not support "disjunctive conclusions" prove, by the fact >>of their use in commerce, that this feature is not a requirement for >>rule use, and is therefore not a requirement for rule interchange. >It is a requirement for integrity constraints and integrity constraints >are used in commercial systems. Therefore, I see "disjunctive consequents" >as a requirement for RIF. >-- > >Francois > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/ Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8 Skype: dieterfensel
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 09:02:26 UTC