RE: A Rule Interchange Format VS a Rule Language for Interoperability and other issues

> If FOL is not a good 
> candidate (as Jim at least hinted), I would be interested to 
> understand 
> why; and we would also need to find out what would be a good 
> candidate;

What do you mean by FOL? Do you mean classical standard
(i.e. textbook) first-order predicate logic? Or do you
mean Common Logic, which is also a FOL (since its 
higher-order constructs can be eliminated)? Or do you
mean partial first-order predicate logic, which would
be more suitable, since it allows indeterminate truth
values, as we have them in SQL and OCL?

> - Non-monotony: most applications/engines/rule bases that 
> rely on SNAF 
> also rely on monotonic inference/languages (well, I do not know for 
> most; but some certainly do). It works because they actually rely on 
> bounded monotony, only the bound is implicit (and, in most of 
> the cases, obvious: a session, an inference cycle, whatever). 

How would you define your notion of "bounded monotony"? 
It's not clear for me what you mean by that.

-Gerd