- From: John F. Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:34:41 -0400
- To: Valentin Zacharias <Zacharias@fzi.de>
- CC: phayes@ihmc.us, ivan@w3.org, juanfederico@gmail.com, semantic-web@w3.org
Valentin, The semantic foundation for RDF and OWL is consistent with the model-theoretic foundation for Common Logic. Any rule language that is consistent with RDF and OWL must be consistent with that same model-theoretic foundation. VZ> In their own words [1]: "A dialect is a rule language with > a well-defined syntax and semantics. This semantics must be > model-theoretic, proof-theoretic, or operational in this order > of preference." > > [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-core/ That is not a coherent definition. What it implies is that the rules have no consistent semantics. VZ> Which also is probably the reason for the "misplacement" of > the unified logic box - there is no (known) unifying logic for > the union of these formalisms. If they allow that loophole, they destroy any chance of interoperability. Why on earth would anyone define a "Rule Interchange Format" that allows different systems to interpret the rules in inconsistent ways? There is a simple solution to this problem: Send the RIF committee back to the drawing board until they agree to a coherent definition. If they can't agree, then just say that RIF is deprecated for use in systems that are required to be interoperable. John Sowa
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 18:34:58 UTC