Michael, You are right (of course :-) and rule do not have any kind of special first-class existence in logic. But shouldn't they, nonetheless, have some kind of first-class existence in a rule interchange format? Michael Kifer wrote: > > The Rule wrapper is unacceptable from the FLD point of view. > I am glad that there is FLD to keep us honest :-) > And this extra wrapper is just bloat that gives nothing. > > All this mess indicates to me that the only good solution is our original > proposal to use Group only. All the talk about the first-class existence > for rules reminds me medieval disputations about how many devils can fit on > a needle point. Or, couldn't "all this mess" indicate that trying to have RIF-FLD cover FOL is just trying to embrace too much at this stage? I can envision that there could be a future LIFE WG (logic interchange format for everyone) chartered to develop a logic dialect framework that would encompass RIF-FLD (the framework for logic dialects of the rule interchange format) as a special case for the kind of formulae that some user/developer communities call "rules"... Just thinking about what is a reasonable scope for this WG, and where to stop... ChristianReceived on Monday, 28 April 2008 16:29:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT