W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Fwd: Re: comments on 26 September version of RDF Semantics document

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:01:08 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f4abb9f51d748f9@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 05:00, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>  At 20:00 29/09/03 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>>  >I tend to agree with Peter about the rules being normative, particularly
>>  >as I couldn't find a formal record of that decision either (the best I
>>  >could do was to link to the IRC log). [...]
>My memory says we decided to make them normative, but my memory
>isn't very reliable.

That is my memory also.  We talked about it but I think we got so 
deep into the discussions about whether or not to keep reflexivity 
and so on that it got lost in the woods. However on reflection I now 
think we should have considered that step (the normative bit, not the 
reflexive) more carefully, as I don't think it really makes sense to 
say that any set of rules is normative. I think at the time I was in 
an "I'm just the editor, tell me what to do, Im tired"  frame of mind.

>The minutes corresponding to the 27 June IRC log are
>and they don't seem to show a decision to make the rules normative.
>>  This makes me wonder if, given that there is less implementation experience
>>  of inference based on these formal semantics, it wouldn't be more
>>  appropriate to request the formal semantics go to CR (with informative
>>  rules) rather than PR at this time?
>I think we've been sufficiently careful to add tests for all the
>interesting nooks and crannies in the semantics that passing
>all the tests is quite a bit of implementation experience with
>the formal semantics as written.
>Moreover, I maintain that horn rules is a correct implementation
>strategy, and I consider anything to the contrary a bug.

?? Like, translating into FOL and using resolution is a bug? Or using 
a tableaux reasoner (like the industrial-strength Manchester OWL 
reasoners) is a bug? Or using a subgraph-cluster checker for handling 
very large sets is a bug?  (etc.)  That seems silly.

I think of the horn rules as a kind of reasoner-erector-set. You can 
put it together fast, you have the parts pre-built, you don't need a 
shop, and it even works pretty well; but its not necessarily what a 
professional would use.  (Which is fine, of course, provided we don't 
make professionalism illegal.)


IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 12:01:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:08 UTC