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

+1

On Wednesday 08 February 2006 16:27, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> Uli has it right, I think.
>
> This is the requirement.  Now we will surely argue about the form of a
> "well-defined semantics".  I like model theories, but even the theorists
> agree that it is hard for anyone to read them.  The reason for the hard
> mathematics, however, is that it resolves *all* the cases, and does not
> leave all the pathological cases to the reader's (or engine's) way of
> thinking.  So perhaps, like OWL, we need both a true model theory, and a
> more conventional (and perhaps somewhat less well-defined) explication for
> the software builders.
[...]
>
> I would have said: I can convert the ruleset in such a way as to convey the
> known-to-be-intended semantics to my reasoning tools.  Or I can convert
> them with known semantic "gains" or "losses" (which I believe will be
> irrelevant to the conclusions I draw and the actions I take, although I may
> be wrong).
>

piero

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:04:57 UTC