- From: Paula-Lavinia Patranjan <paula.patranjan@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:42:45 +0200
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <44BCAD15.9000900@ifi.lmu.de>
Hi, I tried to determine whether the requirements we moved to RIFRAF during the F2F3 (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Critical_Factors_Analysis/Exchange_of_Rules) are covered by the current version of RIFRAF (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-rif-ucr-20060710/#Coverage). Since some of the requirements are quite general, I hope that their champions can correct my classification or refine it if needed. This email lists the requirements moved to RIFRAF together with their place in the RIFRAF structure or comments in case they are missing in RIFRAF. Regarding the current version of RIFRAF, a general comment on it refers to the granularity of the discriminators under the different classes of discriminators...for example, while Syn is quite detailed, Sem is not. Moreover, I can't really see why Turing complete vs. not Turing-complete is a semantic discriminator. Regards, Paula --------------------------------------------------------------- The requirements moved to RIFRAF during the F2F3 refer to: i. Kinds of rules -- RIF should cover deductive rules. (Phase 1) >> Missing in RIFRAF. -- RIF should cover normative rules. (Possibly part in Phase 1, but mostly Phase 2) >> Missing in RIFRAF. -- RIF should cover production rules. (Phase 2) >> Missing in RIFRAF. -- RIF should cover ECA rules. (Phase 2) >> Missing in RIFRAF. >> Comments on the above given requirements: some of the ingredients for these rules are of course covered by the current RIFRAF, but some are not (e.g. Implicit vs. explicit event query specification (production rules vs. ECA rules) or the kind of actions in the action part of production and ECA rules). In my opinion, the different kinds of rules (possibly with appropriate sub-discriminators e.g. for events and actions) is a useful discriminator for rule languages and is important for their interchange. -- RIF should cover FOL. (Phase TBD) >> Not entirely covered by RIFRAF. Perhaps it would be good to explicitly list negation in RIFRAF. ii. Rule features: -- RIF should support RDF deduction rules. (Part in Phase 1, part in Phase 2) >> Missing in RIFRAF. -- RIF should support frame-based syntax. (Phase 1 per charter, at least for slots) >> Slotted arguments covered by RIFRAF: (5.1.1) Syn: (5) Slotted (Keyed, Role-Named) vs. Positional Arguments -- RIF should support a restricted form of equality. (Phase TBD) >> Covered to some extent by RIFRAF: (5.1.1) Syn: (1.1) Restricted vs. Unrestricted Use of Logical Variables (Single-occurrence variables (no implicit variable equality) vs. Multiple-occurrence variables (implicit variable equality; if an equality predicate is available, this can be made explicit via tests in the body; e.g., using an 'equal' predicate, the multiple-occurrence p(?x,?y,?x) :- q(?y) can be transformed into the single-occurrence p(?x1,?y,?x2) :- equal(?x1,?x2), q(?y))) -- RIF should support priorities and preferences as meta language features. (Phase 2) >> RIFRAF: (5.1.2) SeS: (9) Priority >> Comment: preferences not covered in RIFRAF -- RIF should support meta rules for meta reasoning. (Phase 2) >> Missing in RIFRAF. -- RIF should be able to accept relational tables/views as data. (Phase 2) >> Missing in RIFRAF. >> Comment: RIFRAF doesn't cover the kinds of data the rules are working on. -- RIF should be able to express SBVR business rules. (Phase 2) >> Missing in RIFRAF as it is, but surely covered (to some extent) by the RIFRAF items. I think the best way to determine the coverage of this requirement is to split it into a set of detailed requirements and then look for them in RIFRAF. -- RIF should support LP semantics with negation as failure and strong negation (a la DLV). (Phase 2) >> Missing in RIFRAF. -- RIF should support module construct for scoped positive queries and scoped negation as failure queries. (Phase 2) >> RIFRAF: (5.1.1) Syn: (4) Explicit vs. Implicit Rule Scope -- RIF should support variables that are typed. (Phase 2) >> Missing in RIFRAF. -- RIF should support rule sets that are combinations of different kinds of rules (e.g., a mixture of deductive and normative rules). (Phase 2) >> Missing in RIFRAF. -- RIF should support higher order syntax. (Phase 2) >> RIFRAF: (5.1.1) Syn: (2) Predicate Variables Permitted vs. Not Permitted >> Comment: the requirement is more general than the RIFRAF item, whose description adds just as an explanation a reference to a more generalized version of it (not just for predicates but also functions and atom positions). -- RIF should support modal operators. (Phase 2) ---- Obligation ---- Permission ---- Necessity ---- Possibility >> RIFRAF: (5.1.3) Sem: (4) Modality allowed or not allowed (beyond FOL)
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2006 09:43:00 UTC