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

Piero A. Bonatti wrote:

>On Wednesday 08 February 2006 12:49, Francois Bry wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>metadata tagging with the intended semantics would be a possible approach
>  
>
This is exactly what I meant.
-- 

Francois

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 08:02:09 UTC