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

[RIF] Propose mapping between WRL & DLV and Harold et al condition language

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@urjc.es>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:48:33 +0200
Message-ID: <44BD1EF1.1050409@urjc.es>
To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

This is in response to action
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/20

"Propose mapping between WRL & DLV and Harold et al condition language"

Mappings from WRL and DLV to the basic condition language
have already been presented in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0035

As I understood this action item, it should itentify conditions in RIF 
which CAN NOT be mapped back to the language, i.e. to define the parts 
of the condition language which are possibly subject to lossy translations:

1) WRL: the mapping in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0035
covers the full range of the basic condition language, thus, lossless
translation is possibly.

2) DLV:
The basic condition language can be covered by straight-forward, 
lossless mappings: Disjunction in conditions in rule bodies can be 
resolved by the usual Lloyd-Topor transformation.

The extended condition language with classical negation "Neg" is more 
problematic: The language of DLV does not have classical negation 'neg' 
in its language, since strong negation '-' in DLV slightly differs 
semantically. Thus e.g. universal conditions, i.e. the translation
  Forall cond = Neg Exists Neg cond
would not work in the extended condition language.


That's all for now,

axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2006 17:48:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:30 GMT