- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:54:23 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Ian Horrocks wrote: > > 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); Well, deduction rules and integrity constraints calkl for different reasonin g methods, while they can be expressed in terms of the same model theory. >> (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. I think, Gerd and I are very much on the same line of thoughts. Even Though we might use different phrasings. Francois
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 14:54:28 UTC