W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Data models as constraints

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:42:29 +1300
Message-Id: <4A794245-078F-45C7-9E66-DC001F57EF16@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
To: Hassan At-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>


On 17 Jan 2007, at 20:49, Hassan At-Kaci wrote:

> Enrico Franconi wrote:
>
>> I guess you have missed a few *crucial* references in your work:
>
> Thanks for kindly pointing these out to me. I am aware of most of them
> as well of many others besides these. However, my goal is not a  
> *survey*
> on combining rules and ontologies, but to propose seeing data  
> models as
> constraints when used in rule-based schemes. Do these "missed"  
> references
> do so? (I do not think so - but I will check again.)

Sure they do so! DLs are about constraints, and the classical  
approaches to integrate rules with DLs ara about that. So, I'd expect  
that some comparison with the works done on this very same problem  
should be considered.

> At any rate, you mean "crucial" in what sense?

In the above sense.

> Do you imply that the paper is pointless
> without them? Does the fact that I "missed" these references  
> invalidate
> any of the contents? Or make its message pointless? Or does "crucial"
> mean that these papers are all of so momentous importance that no  
> paper
> on rules for the SW ought never to "leave home without it"? For me,
> a "crucial" miss is a *serious* flaw. Is my paper seriously flawed?

Cool down man, I was just saying that very similar goals have been  
considered already in the literature, and that it may be useful for  
your work to look at them. Maybe just to realise that your approach  
is better anyway.

> Anyway, thanks for reading through the thick of my slab so quickly.

I don't see any smiley here :-)

> PS/ This confirms that one always starts reading a paper with the most
>     important section: the references! ;-)

Is there anything wrong with that?

cheers
--e.
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 11:45:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:35 GMT