W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2006

Re: RIF and QL

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:20:01 +0100
To: "George Stoilos" <gstoil@image.ntua.gr>
Message-Id: <90C13142-16C8-431D-91EC-E6137DA11C68@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>, "'Gerd Wagner'" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, "'\"\"Peter F. Patel-Schneider\"\"'" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>, <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 31 Jan 2006, at 09:56, George Stoilos wrote:
>> Facts:
>>
>> 1) both rulesets are equivalent if they are given a FOL semantics or
>> a disjunctive logic programs semantics.
>>
>> 2) both rulesets don't solve correctly the example, if the
>> interaction with the KB is given by means of local queries over the
>> KB, both in the case of FOL and LP semantics for the rules alone.
>>
>> 3) both rulesets solve correctly the example, if the
>> interaction with
>> the KB is given by means of global (rules + KB) FOL semantics or of
>> global Rosati's LP semantics.
>>
>> So, I don't see how in this discussion the form of the rules plays a
>> role. It is a matter of the semantics of the interoperation between
>> rules and KB.
>
> Oh! I see. But in your use case you state that: "In a framework with a
> classical semantics we actually get ..., as expected", while other
> approaches integrating rules with ontologies might fail, since they  
> operate
> in a preferred minimal model. So as far as I understand SWRL  
> belongs to the
> classical semantics framework (if not then which approach does),

Correct, it does.

> while
> Rosati's approach belongs to those of the second category which  
> manage to
> get what expected.

Correct.

cheers
--e.


Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 13:22:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:26 GMT