Re: [UCR] RIF needs different reasoning methods

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