Re: RIF and QL

On 27 Jan 2006, at 14:12, Francois Bry wrote:
> It seems to me that you are missing that Enrico's point was not about
> finding a way to implement his example, but to cope with disjunctive
> information in general. Enrico's goal requires deduction methods  
> that go
> beyond what many rule languages offer.
>
> Many rule languages are based on construvctive logic, or if you  
> like it
> better, simple modus ponens (with forward or backeward chaining). For
> coping with disjunctive information, one needs refutation, or  
> techniques
> like anscestor resultion amounting to refutation.
>
> My understanding, is that Enrico's example is about the power of the
> deduction methods used in a rule engine. RIF might well give rise to
> express Enrico's example, copming along with a simple declarative
> semantics (or model theory), without making any commitment/assumptions
> about a procedural semantics.

I agree. This is a fair account of my feelings :-)

--e.