- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:03:40 -0500 (EST)
- To: bgrosof@MIT.EDU
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: Benjamin Grosof <bgrosof@MIT.EDU> Subject: Re: Production Logic Programs Approach, in a Nutshell: paper now available Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:53:29 -0500 > Hi Peter, [...] > 2. The binding patterns restrictions on sensors are restrictions > similar in spirit to other pragmatic safety restrictions > that are found commonly in rule systems, e.g., head-safe or > negation-safe (or function-free, for that matter). > Whether this sensor-safety condition is met in all rule bodies can be > determined statically (before run-time), tractably. Please can you > explain: what do you view as the fatal flaw, if any? Suppose I have a rule set like: bindreq @le (bound, bound) less(?x,2) <- @le(?x,2) then I expect, from the virtual KB wording to get at least two results less(1,2) less(2,2) but the bindreq changes that so that I get no results. How can you account for the meaning of the bindreq pragmas? > Wrt why send out notice of the current version of this PLP paper: > A number of people in the RIF group (and outside it) had asked for a > nutshell version paper about PLP ASAP. Ah, but didn't you consider that a request to have a *finished* version of the document ready ASAP? :-) > Best, > Benjamin peter
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 22:03:57 UTC