Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited) --> disjunctive conclusions from Dave Reynolds on 2006-02-09 (public-rif-wg@w3.org from February 2006)

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:13:22 +0000
To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <43EB31E2.8040204@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Francois Bry wrote:

> For both Integrity Constraint (IC) and Trust Negociation, one needs 
> rules with disjunctive consequents. Commercial approaches supporting IC 
> with disjunctive consequents are widesrpead. I think, both applications, 
> IC and Trust Negociation, should be covered by RIF already in phase 1.

I would have thought that for integrity constraints you might also want, 
for example, negation (at least NAF). Whereas negation (both classical and 
NAF) are explicitly identified in the charter as phase 2 issues.

Would you say that disjunctive consequents are more widespread and higher 
priority than negation?

Dave

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:13:51 UTC