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: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:57:27 -0500
Message-Id: <0619db72a0f3e13c10609f3a5d79c3ef@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
To: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>

On Mar 12, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Gerd Wagner wrote:
[snip]
> 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

I'm still trying to tease out 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).

Well, let's see, looking at the start of the thread 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0033.html>:
	The title of the thread (set by Francois) is "RIF needs different 
reasoning methods"
	The first paragraph reads:
"""At the RIF meeting last week in Mandelieu, I have been asked to
explain the view that RIF needs different reasoning methods -
even though it should have a single declarative semantics."""

In response to my request for clarification 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0038.html>:

"""Dear Bijan,
 > Sorry, I missed the meeting. Are you arguing that RIF documents need
 > to be able to *specify* the intended reasoning method for those
 > documents?
Yes, I do.
 > Is this distinct from declaring their intended semantics?
Yes, it is."""

So, I don't see you and Francois advocating the same view (esp. as 
stated in that message, which, to my knowledge, Francois has not 
repudiated). Perhaps things have evolved, and perhaps your reading is 
correct. However, it still seems that Francois wants to mark the exact 
proof theory used, even when it makes no semantic or efficiency 
difference. I don't *understand* that view, or the rationale for it. I 
would be happy if it *wasn't* Francois' view, but I don't want to 
ignore it. And I certainly don't want to get caught in a bait and 
switch (on either side).

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 12 March 2006 23:57:31 GMT

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