- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:39:56 +0000
- To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 12 Mar 2006, at 23:09, Gerd Wagner wrote: > 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 The trouble is that this isn't what either Francois or I said: Francois' proposal explicitly referred to distinguishing the reasoning method to be applied to rules of the same type (or at least having the same meaning); I said that *if* the RIF supports rules with different meanings, then they would need to be distinguished. > (I think this was the main point of the debate, and not > the issue of efficient proof theories). I think that we should wait for Francois to clarify his intended meaning, which is not obviously the same as yours. Ian > > -Gerd > >
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 09:39:56 UTC