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: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:58:07 +0100
Message-ID: <44113F9F.9040904@ifi.lmu.de>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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? 
Let consider an analogy. Assume oner wants to insert a data item I in a
collection C of data items and get the resulting collection sorted.
Depending on whethner C is sorted or not, this can be done in different
manners with considerably different complexities.

Similar cases will arise with RIF applications. Drawing consequences
from facts and deduction rules, checking if normative rules are
satisified or not, or drawing consequences from general rules (or
formulas) are three different tasks. The semantics of these tasks might
well be expressable in the same manner. But performing these three tasks
at acceptable, state-of-the-art efficiency requires different methods.

My suggestion is to make annotations (to RIF rulersets) possible using
which one could specify such different tasks and thus giving hints at
how to perform them efficiently. I do not see any darwbacks in making
such annotations possible. I see considerable drawnbacks in not making
such annotations possible.


Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 08:58:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:37 UTC