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

RE: [UCR] RIF needs different reasoning methods

From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:27:58 +0100
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "'Francois Bry'" <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002601c6444e$d4690cb0$55032b8d@TMGWAGNER>

> > 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.    

Yes, it's a sublanguage of many FOLs, not just of standard 
classcial FOL. All of them agree on the the semantics of this 
simple fragment, but as soon as you add a less innocent logical
operator, such as negation or implication, they disagree.
Constructive negation and constructive implication are different
from standard FOL/OWL/SWRL negation and implication.
 
> My sense of your overall message is that you want distributed
> programming instead of distributed knowledge representation.  Is that
> about right?

No, I'd like to consider distributed processing, and not just
distributed reasoning (or do you think all processing is
reasoning?).
 
-Gerd
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 14:31:19 GMT

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