W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > February 2006

Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited) --> disjunctive conclusions

From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:55:12 +0100
Message-ID: <43EB49C0.1000500@ifi.lmu.de>
To: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org

Michael Kifer wrote:

>IMO, it would be preferable that integrity constraint can be expressed in RIF without having to be re-writen eg using the above-mentioned transformation.

By the way, this transformation amounts to negation:

A => (B or C) |=| A & not (B or C) => false |=| not(A & not (B or C))

>I think we have a consensus that we should not tackle disjunctions in the
>heads of *deductive* rules in Phase 1. 
I would prefer not to have such a restriction because it would preclude 
a natural, ie non-encoded, representation of IC, and would prevent 
handling negociations.

>Since we already discussed that RIF rulesets could be tagged with semantics
>to let the recipient understand the intended meaning, I don't see
>significant obstacles to allowing disjunctions in the heads of deductive
>rules when these are tagged with classical or stable-model semantics. The
>recipient engine can reject such rules, if it doesn't have an engine to
>process them.

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:55:23 UTC

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