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

Re: [UCR] RIF needs different reasoning methods

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:39:56 +0000
Message-Id: <bb8aefbb1133cca26b1b20b2f7b58d1e@cs.man.ac.uk>
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.


> -Gerd
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 09:39:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:37 UTC