- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:18:19 -0500
- To: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Cc: "'Francois Bry'" <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
> - rules for making definitions: constructive derivation rules,
> called "views" in SQL
> - rules for constraining the possible states (and execution
> histories) of a system: integrity rules/constraints
> - rules for expressing defaults and heuristics: nonmonotonic
> derivation rules
>
> And none of these computational logic distinctions are
> reflected in standard FOL (and neither are they in OWL/SWRL):
> you can't simply combine them and submit their merge to
> a "reasoner"!
The first two seem to be very much in the domain of FOL, to me, and it's
my impression that there are some reasonable approaches to the third
based on some kind of "scoping". For instance, it seems common
knowledge that database views are datalog, an obvious sub-language of
FOL. (I'm particularly confused, because I think I've heard you talk
about this.)
My sense of your overall message is that you want distributed
programming instead of distributed knowledge representation. Is that
about right?
> Does the RIF (or the W3C) intend to ignore these distinctions?
FWIW, the full and complete official statement of W3C intent is the
charter.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter
It might be good to compare what you're thinking with what it says.
-- sandro
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 14:18:30 UTC