Re: [TED] Action-188, ISSUE: production rule systems have "difficulty" with recursive rules in RIF Core

> > > This would be a ridiculous and unjustified restriction.
> > > 
> > > The core is for exchange. There is no requirement for any concrete
> > > system to properly include the core. (Don't confuse concrete systems with
> > > RIF dialects.)
> > 
> > I'm not sure where the disagreement or misunderstanding here is.
> > 
> > My understanding fits with what Gary said, that RIF Core is a dialect
> > and it's a part of every RIF dialect, so every rule engine using RIF
> > must implement RIF Core.    
> 
> I think that this requirement makes no sense and, furthermore, is
> meaningless.  Suppose people want to exchange aggregate-free subsets
> of SQL 1992 through RIF.  Does it mean that RIF core should be limited
> to relational algebra?  Or does it mean that we will kick them out
> even though they can perfectly use RIF core to exchange their stuff
> (preserving semantics etc.) we will somehow stop them until they
> implement full RIF Core?
>
> (Note that different SQL vendors have various deviations from SQL 1992
> (even though most of them claim to support it!), so such an exchange is not
> completely out of question.)

I'm confused.  Why don't you propose an alternative conformance clause,
one that makes more sense to you than my strawman, and we'll go from
there.

Some guidance about writing conformance clauses (which I'll re-read now)
is at http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ .

      -- Sandro

> > 
> > We'll need some normative Conformance text at some point, something a
> > bit like:
> >    http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#consistencyChecker
> > 
> > We could say something like (as a rought first cut):
> > 
> >      A "RIF Core Rule Engine" is a rule engine which can perform sound
> >      and complete reasoning on any rule set which can encoded in one or
> >      more RIF Core documents.  It must be able to answer all queries
> >      against the deductive closure of the ruleset, where a query is
> >      equivalent to a RIF Core anticedent, and to answer a query means to
> >      provide every matching set of bindings to the variables in the
> >      anticedent. 
> > 
> > At the moment, unless some new information comes along, I'm inclined to
> > agree that we need to leave recursive Horn rules out of the core.
> > 
> > My understanding is that recursive Horn rules are also a problem for
> > prolog.  As with rete systems, there are lots of clever and effective
> > ways of dealing with this problem (I was once an enthusiastic XSB user),
> > but my sense is that they are still kind of cutting edge instead of the
> > kind of dirt simple we want in RIF Core.  With non-recursive rules, one
> > can do the trivial mapping to prolog or rete rules and any halfway
> > decent engine will be a sound and complete reasoner for RIF Core rules.
> > I think that's what we want.
> > 
> > We could go another step back for RIF Core, all the way to datalog, but
> > I think non-recursive terms are still quite useful (eg for defining
> > uncle), so I'd rather not do that.
> > 
> >    -- Sandro
> > 
>

Received on Friday, 15 December 2006 15:03:03 UTC