- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@urjc.es>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:48:33 +0200
- To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
This is in response to action http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/20 "Propose mapping between WRL & DLV and Harold et al condition language" Mappings from WRL and DLV to the basic condition language have already been presented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0035 As I understood this action item, it should itentify conditions in RIF which CAN NOT be mapped back to the language, i.e. to define the parts of the condition language which are possibly subject to lossy translations: 1) WRL: the mapping in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0035 covers the full range of the basic condition language, thus, lossless translation is possibly. 2) DLV: The basic condition language can be covered by straight-forward, lossless mappings: Disjunction in conditions in rule bodies can be resolved by the usual Lloyd-Topor transformation. The extended condition language with classical negation "Neg" is more problematic: The language of DLV does not have classical negation 'neg' in its language, since strong negation '-' in DLV slightly differs semantically. Thus e.g. universal conditions, i.e. the translation Forall cond = Neg Exists Neg cond would not work in the extended condition language. That's all for now, axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres email: axel@polleres.net url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2006 17:48:48 UTC