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

> Well, if the purpose of the RIF is to have a language that represents  
> the intersection of all rule languages, as opposed to being a means  
> of interchange between rule systems, then you would be right. But I  
> am strongly of the view that the intersection of all rule languages  
> is empty.
> 
> On the other hand, a different form of conformance would be that any  
> given rule language should be able to express their rules in the RIF.  
> That does not require all rule language engines to be able to  
> understand all elements of the core.

Right. Our responses to Sandro have crossed in the mail.  In that msg, I
proposed that RIF conformance should mean that a semantic-preserving
mapping to a RIF dialect (or dialects). Moreover, some systems might want
to provide mappings from only some subsets of their systems for various
reasons.


	--michael  

> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> On Dec 17, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >>> Some guidance about writing conformance clauses (which I'll re- 
> >>> read now)
> >>> is at http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ .
> >>
> >> I am not concerned with conformance clauses right now, but rather  
> >> with
> >> defining what might be a reasonable set of features (for lack of a  
> >> better
> >> word) that should allow us to call something a core or a dialect  
> >> extending
> >> the core.
> >
> > I think the difference in what we are talking about is in the
> > conformance clause -- that's why I want to focus there.
> >
> > I think RIF's conformance clause will say that for a rule system to
> > implement RIF it has to handle all RIF Core.
> >
> > Do you want to force all rule systems to handle full recursive  
> > Horn?  If
> > RIF tries to do that, I think a lot of rule system vendors will  
> > tell us
> > "no" and not adopt RIF.  It seems to set the bar too high.
> >
> > The fact that non-recursive Horn is too high a bar for non-rule  
> > database
> > vendors is okay, since this is RIF not DBIF.
> >
> >     -- Sandro
> >
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 17 December 2006 17:50:58 UTC