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

Re: [UCR] RIF needs different reasoning methods

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 09:28:36 -0500
Message-Id: <c413b02a5d0ad5538150458924631632@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>

On Mar 7, 2006, at 2:41 AM, Francois Bry wrote:
[snip]
> I gave concrete examples that need reasoning techniques as develioppped
> and used in databases.

But these correspond to well specified semantic/expressive subsets. Why 
the *further* need to distinguish the reasoning technique used.

>  General purpose reasoners arein pracxtice not
> applicable to these cases.

What if they are? Why aren't the efficiently parameters enough to 
specify?

>  If RIF does not ways to consider such
> practical issues, then it won't be  successful in practice.

I'm just trying to discern what the right ways are. As far as I can 
tell, my slightly more abtract approach is pragmatically equivalent to 
what I can figure out of what you what to do. But you don't seem to 
agree, so I'm confused :)

What I don't see is the reason for specifying particular proof 
procedures *instead of* expressive subsets. Responsiveness requirements 
are application dependent, not document dependent (as far as I can 
tell). That is, you want to *in the context of a particular 
application* specify which reasoner, given certain parameters, to use. 
If two reasoners perform acceptibly and give the same answers...what 
*more* do you need? But you *seem* to be saying that more is needed to 
be practical (something above specifying the particular reasoner, but 
below specifying the expressive subset + performance parameters), and 
that this is something that goes with the document as part of the 
specification of the ruleset.

This is the part I don't understand. I read Ed's email, but I didn't 
really get enlightenment, except maybe that you want to be able to 
express reactive rules (as opposed to rules that may be processed 
reactively). But, I'm sorry, I don't see why these are necessary to 
meet your goals. I don't doubt the goals, I just don't see the 
necessary connection with your means.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 14:28:45 GMT

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