Re: [UCR] RIF needs different reasoning methods

Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 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)
>>     
>
> What about production rules where the only action is assert?  Are those
> too different from Horn to count as "Roughly Horn" or are they just not
> interesting enough to bother with.
>   

I hardly see what the benefit would be to mix-up Horn and production
rules. This would open the door to misunderstanding - and would not be
substantiated by existing research results.
>> 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).
>>     
>
> 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? 
>   
Again, look at trhe practice. Would it be a good thing to pretend to
re-invent the wheel?

François