Re: soundness for RIF

> 
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > I was asked to clarify my use of the term "sound" in the context of RIF.
> >
> > This came up because I proposed a requirement "Sound reasoning with
> > unknown dialects", or more fully, "RIF Core must allow sound reasoning
> > with unknown dialects." [1]
> >
> > I think this is one of the main requirements which will constraint the
> > extensibility design.  The application context I'm imagining is use case
> > 8, a query-answering process using deduction rules (database views)
> > coming from a variety of sources.  My requirement here is that I be able
> > to incorporate rulesets which include unknown extensions, and to know
> > that even in the worst case I will not get wrong answers.
> >
> > In other word, I might incorporate a ruleset that includes this rule:
> >
> >     phoneNumberOfAssistant(Boss,Number) :-
> >         assistant(Boss,Assistant),
> >         phoneNumber(Assistant,Number).
> >
> > and also 
> >
> >     assistant(Boss,Assistant),
> >     phoneNumber(Assistant,Number) :-
> >        phoneNumberOfAssistant(Boss,Number).
> >
> > The first rule is a normal Horn clause.  The second is not.  I'm not
> > sure what it is, really.  :-) 

> Is the comma in the lewft hand side of the socond rule a conjunction? If
> yes, then one can make two Horn rules out of it and most probably keep
> the same meaning.

Ah, but you don't know that.  It's an extension for which you haven't
seen the spec yet.

       - s

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 19:31:54 UTC