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

Re: Comments on * DRAFT * Rules Working Group Charter $Revision: 1.60 $

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:39:23 -0400
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: jos.deroo@agfa.com, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050824173924.8170F19E75F@kiferdesk.lmc.cs.sunysb.edu>

> > At any moment when NAF is computed the set of rules and facts is known to
> > the inference engine. What is your problem?
> Is NAF useful in rule sets which are combined with unknown,
> unrestricted other rule sets (potentially also give true information
> about the same domain of discourse) before any inference is done?

You probably didn't understand the essence of my previous message.

The thing you are talking about doesn't exist -- hasn't been defined yet as
far as I know. It is certainly not any form of the NAF that I am familiar
with. This is why I compared "unscoped NAF" with the Unicorn.

If you define it rigorously then I could look at it and give you my
subjective opinion as to whether this new notion is useful or not.

> If so, could you give me an example?

If you define what you have in mind rigorously and if this definition will
define a non-empty set of concepts then, perhaps, we could talk about examples.

Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 17:39:32 UTC

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