- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 19:01:23 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: Uli Sattler <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
On 9 Dec 2005, at 18:32, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On Dec 9, 2005, at 2:24 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote: > >>>> On 8 Dec 2005, at 14:49, Enrico Franconi wrote: >>>>> While I believe, like you, that tehre may be the necessity of >>>>> different behaviours of reasoners, this can only be justified >>>>> by the existence of different semantics for the same rule >>>>> constructs. >>>> >>>> Do you mean that, for such a case, we should provide 2 different >>>> syntactic constructs to make this difference explicit? For >>>> example "implies1" for horn rules without contraposition and >>>> "implies2" for horn rules with contraposition? >>> >>> Or you could have a flag for the whole document which one could >>> override at one's own risk. >> >> Well, if it is "at one's own risk", then anything can be >> overridden :-) > > Well, there are risks that one might reasonably encourage and ones > you'd like to strongly discourage. OK, got it. >> Anyway, the option to override assumes that we have the >> possibility of distinguishing the operators and their semantics >> upfront; we may then decide to ignore such distinction at our own >> risk. > > Of course. > > My thought was more that if I have a collection of function free > horn clauses, I might reasonably decide on some occasion to > evaluate them under minimal model semantics and other times not. > It's not a big deal to have a different operator (since I can > always find and replace/transform). Having different operators > locally spelt differently facilitates (a certain way of ) mixing > rules in the same document which may or may not be a good idea. OK, got it again. cheers --e.
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 18:02:05 UTC