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

Re: Merging Rulesets

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:08:45 -0400
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: jos.deroo@agfa.com, Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, dieter.fensel@deri.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050826210846.CD13819E75F@kiferdesk.lmc.cs.sunysb.edu>


> Michael Kifer writes:
> >             Merging rules is a whole different ball of hair. As far as I
> > can tell, logical reasoning (monotonic or nonmonotonic) is not what you
> > would use here. This is an intellectual activity, which can be automated
> > with the help of heuristics (which are not logical inference rules),
> > machine learning, etc.
> > 
> > I bet, however, that **if** you decide to encode those rule-merging
> > heuristics in a rule-based language (and not in Java, for instance) then
> > you would prefer a Prolog-like language with S/NAF rather than FOL.
> 
> The Semantic Web applications I'm familiar with (including everything
> based on cwm, some of my prolog work, and various things I hear about)
> all merge rulesets freely by just puting them together (concatenation,
> set-union, conjunction, etc).  It's trivial with RDF, OWL, N3, and FOL
> (when you use URIs for names).   It sounds like it might be very hard
> or impossible with rules written in a non-monotonic language.

1.  N3, as I hope we have established by now, is nonmonotonic.

2.  Merging rules by concatenation is trivial in Prolog and languages like
    Flora-2, which allow for rule reification.

When I mentioned heuristics for merging rules I was talking about more
interesting issues. You can view schema merging as a special case of rule
merging. You wouldn't do this by just unioning schemas.

> Is this the root of all the tension around NAF/LP/etc?

Root of tension? I don't see any tension. The issue is understanding what
paradigm suits what tasks, and I don't see this understanding among some of
the proponents of FOL, cwm, N3, etc.


	--michael  
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 21:08:57 GMT

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