W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: RIF Negation

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:04:16 -0400
To: "Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Christian De Sainte Marie'" <csma@fr.ibm.com>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090428110416.1f0bdeb6@kiferserv>
FLD uses Naf for default negation.

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:52:56 +0200
"Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Right, probably it makes sense to have explicit constructs for
> 
> Explicit/Strong/Classical negation                Neg
> Default/Negation-as-failure/Weak/Inflationary     Not
> 
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. April 2009 13:34
> An: Adrian Paschke
> Cc: 'Christian De Sainte Marie'; public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: [Admin] Agenda for RIF telecon 28 April *ADDENDUM* 
> 
> 
> > We discussed it in the last PRD telecon. The semantics of a generic
> > "not" in case of PRD is clear since it used in a production rule set,
> > i.e. it is inflationary not.
> 
> But is it also classical negation and NAF?  In particular, if I have
> this ruleset:
> 
>    forall ?x
>       if not ex:p(?x) then ex:q(?x)
> 
> this proposal defines that as a PRD ruleset.  To my eye, it could just
> as easily be FOL or LPD.  As long as the semantics in all cases would be
> the same, they could all use the same "not", but otherwise, it seems
> like they need to use different operators.
> 
> > Alternative we could introduce many different constructs for
> > negations, but this might be counterproductive to the interchange
> > purpose of RIF. I would propose that the intended semantics of a rule
> > set such as stratified, well-founded, stable models, is denoted by a
> > special label (e.g. an attribute or additional construct) for the rule
> > set and not by different constructs for negations. Otherwise a simple
> > (business) rule set cannot be interchanged between a WFS rule engine
> > and a Stable rule engine without a translation.
> 
> How would that work?  If a ruleset was labeled
> "use-well-founded-semantics" and I was a "stable-semantics" engine, what
> would I do with it?
> 
>      -- Sandro
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
    -- michael
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 15:05:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:05 GMT