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

Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:32:12 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <6561.1148063532@kiferdesk>


"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it> writes:
> 
> From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
> Subject: Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal 
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:18:01 -0400
> 
> > 
> > > From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
> > > Subject: Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal 
> > > Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 21:22:07 -0400
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > > OK, so if in addition the proposal is extended by adding in the standard
> > > > way of providing meaning to non-atomic syntactic constructs, then it can
> > > > > finally talk about satisfying the condition above, provided that the rule
> > > > > formalism *exactly* matches up with one of the RIF "dialects" (to the
> > > > > extent of having the exact same set of interpretations).
> > > > 
> > > > It is actually more general than that. There are only a few different types
> > > > of interpretations (2-valued, 3-valued, etc.) so it would work for any kind
> > > > of dialect that uses one of these in its definition of semantics.
> > > > (Recall that the proposal talks only about the notion of satisfaction in an
> > > > interpretation.)
> > > 
> > > How is it more general?  You are requiring the same interpretations on
> > > either side of your condition,
> > 
> > Not quite. If mappings between interpretations can be established then they
> > don't have to be the same.
> > 
> > > so it looks to me that two rule systems that
> > > differ at all in their model theory will require a different RIF dialect.
> > 
> > but basically - yes. If somebody comes up with a rule system that uses
> > an unheard-of model theory then this would require a new dialect. I see no
> > way around this short of telling people to stop innovating.
> 
> I believe, on the other hand, that the RIF should be "unitary", at least
> for phase 1,

It is already in the charter that phase 1 is Horn.

However, the design should be such that the extensions required by our use
cases will be possible. This requires a lot of thought and preliminary
design.

> and that rule systems demonstrate compliance by translating
> their syntax into and out of the RIF in a way that preserves some notion of
> equivalent behaviour between the system and inference in the RIF on a
> (reasonable) subset of the RIF's syntax.

Most useful, tried-and-true rule-based languages are based on CWA and
production rules. They have much greater expressive power and cannot be
translated into Phase 1. Only their Horn subsets can.

But I don't understand how your answer negates anything in my earlier email.


	--michael  
Received on Friday, 19 May 2006 18:32:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:29 GMT