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

Re: [UCR] RIF needs different reasoning methods

From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:41:26 +0100
Message-ID: <440D3926.9050009@ifi.lmu.de>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> Well, if you are primarily concerned with correctness, I guess so. But
> let's say you are concerned with responsiveness...why would you bother
> to specify which proof procedure was in place instead of a
> responsiveness parameter. Why do you *care* if the system in question
> is using "constructive reasoning" if it is correct and meets your
> performance needs? Contrariwise, it's not clear that just knowing that
> a system uses "constructive reasoning" will meet the performance
> needs. Bad implementation, implementations tuned for other things, and
> so on can make an enormous difference to actual performance.
>
> Again, I think there is worth in having an expressiveness lattice
> which is informed both by theoretical considerations (including the
> worst case complexity of sound and complete or otherwise proof
> procedures), field experience (e.g., certain features are popular),
> and current implementation considerations. I'm just unclear why it
> makes sense, in general, absent procedural issues, to specify in one's
> exchange format, the specific proof procedure used (unless, the proof
> procedure is either not sound or incomplete and the results of that
> particular procedure is regarded as canonical; and are we really going
> there?) Why is it helpful in the *exchange*? How does it help the
> exchange? I don't get the scenarios where just the expressiveness will
> *go wrong*.
>
> (I can see having comments, "we've tested this set on Jess versions
> blah and blah, and KAON, and RDF Gateway, and whatever and it runs
> like a pig on all of them except X. The next version of Jess, we're
> told, should handle this with acceptable performance". But what do we
> need to do to support that? Nothing I think.)
>
I gave concrete examples that need reasoning techniques as develioppped
and used in databases. General purpose reasoners arein pracxtice not
applicable to these cases. If RIF does not ways to consider such
practical issues, then it won't be  successful in practice.

Regards,

François
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 07:41:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:27 GMT