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

Re: [UCR] RIF needs different reasoning methods

From: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:02:00 -0800
Message-Id: <959287F6-557C-48AD-B1E7-8286941E8F4E@mac.com>
Cc: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

I have a suspicion that the real difference between derivation rules  
and integrity constraints is the performative used to introduce the  
formula. I.e.,
   assert(Phi)
is different to
   ensure(Phi)
This was something that the LP community never understood way back  
when :) (me included)
Frank


On Mar 12, 2006, at 4:50 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
>
>>> I think the key question is to what extent we want to support
>>> different
>>> types of semantics for rules with the same syntax.
>>> Is that really a good thing?
>>
>> Are you asking if it's really a good thing to support
>> both derivation rules and integrity rules/constraints?
>> (These two types of rules are distinguished both in SQL
>> and in OCL.)
>
> My understanding is that derivation rules and integrity constraints  
> are
> just a bifurcation of Horn rules (or sometimes the two halves of
> something beyond Horn).  As such they fit easily into the same
> semantics.
>
>    - sandro
>
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 05:02:10 GMT

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