- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:09:53 +0100
- To: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Sandro Hawke wrote: > To help keep us on track for Phase 1, the charter gives us a limit > (roughly Horn rules) on which features of each system we will cover. > Within that limit, I'm not sure there are many questions about which > systems to cover. "Roughly Horn rules" seems to exclude - production rules (and ECA/reaction rules) - nonmonotonic reasoning rules (for defaults and heuristics) It seems to include: - limited forms of constructive derivation rules (such as SQL views without negation) - limited forms of (normative) integrity rules/constraints (such as certain SQL ASSERTION clauses) Ian Horrocks wrote: > If the RIF supports rules with different meanings (i.e., > where different behaviour of the consuming system is > expected), then clearly > they would need to be distinguished. I don't see anyone > disagreeing about that. OK, then we agree on Francois' proposal to mark/annotate the distinction between these different types of rules (I think this was the main point of the debate, and not the issue of efficient proof theories). -Gerd
Received on Sunday, 12 March 2006 23:13:06 UTC