- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:33:50 +0000
- To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Francois Bry wrote: > > 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! I can point concrete applications that require features only available in very advanced rule systems. I can point to concrete applications that would *like* features that we know to be impossible. We also need to consider what is actually implemented, not what is desired in an ideal unbound world. > 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! > Quite the reverse. We are having a discussion on how pragmatic RIF is, whether it focuses on the 80% most common and widely implemented capabilities or it is pushing the boundaries on richness of rule languages. Dave
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 09:34:18 UTC