- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:59:14 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, edbark@nist.gov, Chris Welty <cawelty@frontiernet.net>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Yes, you need some kind of a non-first-order trick to have a useful notion of constraints. At least, this is all I've seen. --michael > I'm not particularly up on the literature on integrity constraints, but > what I've seen seems to fall in line behind Reiter and Michael (roughly > that integrity constraints are not first order/are "epistemic"). (And > this isn't just in the LP or database literature.) That doesn't mean > that there isn't something I've not seen, of course. So I'm wondering > if anyone has some pointers to alternative conceptions (preferably post > "On Integrity Constraints"). (That is, I'm looking for evidence that > there are pre-existing such conceptions. The "I can imagine" constraint > seems a bit weak :)) > > I'm definitely missing what's at stake :) > > Cheers, > Bijan. > >
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 06:02:14 UTC