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.

true

> 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:23 GMT