- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:46:14 +0000
- To: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Cc: <edbark@nist.gov>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
On 8 Feb 2006, at 16:13, Dieter Fensel wrote: > > At 04:59 PM 2/8/2006 +0100, Gerd Wagner wrote: > >> >> 2. RIF could allow for rules the processing of which goes >> >> beyond what currently is widespread. Eg rules with >> >> disjunctive conclusions. >> >> > [...] We will have enough on our plate to deal with >> > commercial rules engine expressiveness, SWRL, OWL and RDF. >> > If the choice is supporting disjunctive consequents and >> > having a RIF model theory in 6 months that we can all >> > accept, I'll take the latter. >> >> But OWL/SWRL have already introduced disjunctive >> conclusions (which btw are not a problem for the >> model-theoretic semantics, even not when combined >> with NAF; they are only a problem for the inference >> engines), so this is not PhD research! > > > 1) They are ONLY a problem for the inference engines!!!!!!!!! > So for the ONLY thing that really counts. > > 2) Mentioning SWRL to me is not very convincing either. It is > a political motivated restriction of FOL without returning anything > in return in terms of computational complexity. Can you explain what you mean by "political motivated" in this context? Ian > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/ > Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8 > Skype: dieterfensel > >
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 17:46:20 UTC