RE: FLogic interchange examples

> This example hints at something that I too have been mulling over.
> 
> 1. There is a significant loss of information going from F-logic to  
> the current RIF proposal. The same would be true for Go! (although  
> for different reasons). I contend that (a) for any given language  
> there will likely be significant loss of information in going from a  
> specific language to a LCD language (Least Common Denominator) and  
> (b) that loss is likely not acceptable.

Yes, I completely agree.
 
> 2. I think that one route to interchange could be via the RIFRAF.  
> I.e., if we allow a language designer to specific the 
> ontology of his  
> or her language and then use ontology mapping between language  
> ontologies, then you can potentially construct a mapping from one  
> language to another. That way the RIF is not actually a rule 
> language but an ontology framework for describing rule languages.

I think our examples show that RIF must include vocabulary
interchange (because rules are based on vocabularies) and
therefore RIF must include a non-LCD vocabulary interchange 
format as a core component. The minimum vocabulary elements
are class, property and operation (user-defined function).

We have improved our example document, so that this point gets
more clear. Please check out
http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/rewerse-i1/?q=node/22