Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited)

From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
Subject: Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:59:26 +0100

> At 12:49 PM 2/8/2006 +0100, Francois Bry wrote:
> 
> >Peter has been right to state the following, I think:
> >
> >a. RIF should have a formal syntax.
> >b. RIF should have a formal semantics.
> >
> >IMO, the following can be added:
> >
> >1. RIF's formal semantics might, and may be should, be more abstract than 
> >those of existing processable rule languages. Eg making it possible to 
> >express "negation as failure" without choosing between Stable Model and 
> >Well-Founded semsntics.
> >
> >2. RIF could allow for rules the processing of which goes beyond what 
> >currently is widespread. Eg rules with disjunctive conclusions.
> 

> Why? We do not need a rule language that covers any possible feature but one
> that covers 80% of the stuff that is used and useful. 

Hmm.  A RIF that covers 80% of what is used and useful might actually be
totally useless, as almost every rule-set might include something that the RIF
doesn't handle.

> Notice W3C is not about
> standardizing research and PhD topics but rather on well -established stuff.

Yeah, right.  :-)

[...]

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/
> Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8
> Skype: dieterfensel

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 14:09:53 UTC