- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:23:12 +0100
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer), "W3C RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org, "Paul Vincent" <pvincent@tibco.com>
Sandro Hawke wrote:
[...]
> We'll need some normative Conformance text at some point, something a
> bit like:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#consistencyChecker
True.
> 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
^ be
> 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
^e
> provide every matching set of bindings to the variables in the
> anticedent.
^e
I agree.
> 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.
All of the rule sets that I use for my practical work have
some rules that are recursive, even some of them also have
mutual predicate dependency like
pred3(X,Z):- pred1(X,Y), pred2(Y,Z).
pred2(X,Z):- pred3(X,Y), pred4(Y,Z).
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 17 December 2006 19:24:11 UTC