W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > August 2005

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

From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:42:27 +0200
To: "'Christian de Sainte Marie'" <csma@ilog.fr>, <public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050824144348.5B6085081F5@smtp2.TU-Cottbus.De>

> 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.

Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 14:44:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:33 UTC