- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 08:59:09 +0100
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Dave Reynolds wrote: >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! >> >> > >But it is a problem for inference engines, as you say, and that affects RIF. > >If those features are only commonly implemented in research systems then it >is not a priority for RIF to be able to express them. > > Please, let us look at concrtete applications, eg integrity constraints that require disjunctive consequents! It seems to me that we are having a ideological (= or religious fundamentilistic :-) ) debate and not sufficiently discuss the applications that need rules to be interchanged on the web! -- Francois
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 07:59:14 UTC