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

On Thursday 09 February 2006 11:09, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> I am perfectly happy that phase 2 might well include extensions which
> are close to the bleeding edge. However, the task of phase 1 is to
> define a simple common, but extensible, core 

yes, but the point here is that certain functionalities are perceived by 
several members as already common enough to enter phase 1.  there are engines 
that can use those constructs against KBs importing mid-sized DBs so we are 
talking about reasonably engineered technology.  even if one regards those 
constructs as constraints, well, ICs can't be considered as bleeding edge.

if your concern is that these extensions may be difficult to deal with *in the 
normative effort of RIF* (as opposed to automated reasoning) then I'd say: 
let's not discard those construct a priori from phase 1.  let's rather check 
whether there is a natural, simple way of incorporating them from scratch, 
and reconsider this approach if and when difficulties arise (a much better 
use of our time, compared to the current issue being discussed)

this is a nice way of reducing a risk, namely, adopting in phase 1 a normative 
style that does not scale to phase 2.  we will also get some anticipations on 
possible problems in phase 2

piero

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:16:20 UTC