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

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

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:39:15 -0500
To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060209143915.473AACBED6@kiferserv.kiferhome.com>


Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> >  

The attribution here is wrong. I didn't write the above.
But yes, this is what Lloyd-Topor is about.

> 
> 
> 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.

Then we will not have phase 1 in the foreseeable future.


	--michael  
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 14:39:24 GMT

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