- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 23:52:29 -0400
- To: Till Mossakowski <Till.Mossakowski@dfki.de>
- CC: <public-rif-comments@w3.org>
Till, Combining logic and production rules is not easy. You might want to take a look at a recent paper http://www.inf.unibz.it/~mrezk/techreportTRPS.pdf (a short version appeared in http://2012.foiks.org/) and the references therein. In particular http://centria.di.fct.unl.pt/~jleite/papers/iswc10.pdf michael On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:01:53 +0100 Till Mossakowski <Till.Mossakowski@dfki.de> wrote: > Dear RIF community, > > I am the chairman of the OntoIOp ISO standarisation effort [1,2], and we > are considering to integrate RIF. Now one specific question arose: > > Is there a way of using a logical theory and RIF-PRD together? > > The logical theory could be formulated in RIF-Core or RIF-BLD (or even > OWL or FOL), and would play the role of general integrity constraints. > The question is what happens if an update produced by RIF-PRD rules > violates such an integrity constraint. One could block the update, or > one could try to modify the update in a minimal way such that the > integrity constraint is still satisfied (cf. M. Winslett: "Updating > logical databases") - although this would deviate from RIF-PRD's > operational semantics. Even another option would be to use the logical > theory as definitions, defining certain predicates in terms of other > "primitive" predicates. Then only the primitive predicates would be > updated by rules, and the defined ones would follow their definitions. > > Have such issues been discussed? I am grateful for any pointers. > > All the best, > Till > > [1] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOp > [2] > http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=59599
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 03:53:01 UTC