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

Re: FOL versus Rule Languages - A tutorial

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:08:24 +0200
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, dieter.fensel@deri.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAC5731EB.810809EC-ONC1257069.006BE577-C1257069.006E9A90@agfa.com>


> In NAF, the scope is implicit, but well-defined. However,
> this implicitness doesn't work well on the web because
> the Web is practically infinite.


> There is always that "somewhere on the web" as you put it,
> which the engine may not be aware of. One way out of this
> is to let the user specify the scope of the inference
> explicitly (which is what SNAF really is). In this way,
> you tell the engine where to look.

Right, but then you say, and I now understand that SNAF
is non-monotonic; I'm fine when such reasoning results
are used for local action (and have good experience with
that) but I really don't see it for cases where we have
merging of rulesets created without knowledge of what
they would be merged with (to use Sandro's words)

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 20:08:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:34 UTC