Re: Review XML Data in RIF

Sorry, didn't have a chance to look at it before, but the whole purpose of
defining the models is so that then one could define entailment. Without the
entailment there is not much use for the notion of a model.

Regarding the notion of entailment, I think it is not quite correct (Definition
Logical entailment in a RIF BLD+XML data combination). We should be talking about one BLD+XML combo <phi,E,S> entailing another, <psi,E',S>.
Perhaps actually just entailing psi. Just phi entailing psi seems incorrect.

My understanding is that the XML part, E, is just another form of data, ie, a
bunch of facts.
So, we should be definitely talking about <phi,E,S> entailing something.
Now, the question is what exactly do we want to entail? I think psi should be a
query, ie, a BLD body formula. Do we want to entail a piece of XML as well?
I am not sure. We need to see a use case of what exactly the intent is.

So, I take the approval in my previous message back. I think we need to clarify
this point.

michael


On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:59:36 +0200
Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com> wrote:

> IBM
> 9 rue de Verdun
> 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
> Tel./Fax: +33 1 49 08 29 81
> 
> 
> Christian De Sainte Marie/France/IBM wrote on 08/10/2010 19:36:35:
> > 
> > I am almost done updating the RIF+XML data document [1], now: 
> > remains only [...]
> 
> Ooops! I forgot: there is also the question of entailement...
> 
> I wanted your opinion re how to define entailment in a RIF BLD+XML data 
> combination.
> 
> Specifically, I wonder if it is useful to define entailement in a RIF+XML 
> data combination, <R, E, S>: Phi entails Psy iff any models (E, Î, S) of 
> <R, E, S> of Psi is also a model of <R, E, S> of Phi?
> 
> The alternative would be to define entailment as usual, that is, Phi 
> entails Psy iff any models (E, Î, S) (of any RIF+XML data combination) of 
> Psi is also a model of Phi. If I am correct, that definition is exactly 
> equivalent to entailment in RIF BLD (since E, and S are not fixed).
> 
> On the one hand, I believe that we should not add useless notions just for 
> the sake of adding them; on the other hand, even if we do not see any use 
> in adding the notion of entailment specific to one particular RIF+XML data 
> combination, i may be only because we do not have the notion of a RIF+XML 
> data combination yet, and the specific entailment may prove useful in the 
> future...
> 
> So, what do you think: define the specific notion or not?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
> Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
> Compagnie IBM France
> Siege Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex
> RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
> Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
> Capital Social : 612.509.964 ?
> SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 04:19:39 UTC