- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:48:03 +0200
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Gerd Wagner wrote: > The precedence is SQL, which has several sublanguages > catching different formalisms: SQL views correspond to > constructive derivation rules, SQL assertions correspond > to normative/integrity rules, and SQL triggers correspond > to ECA/reaction rules. These sublanguages share some syntax > and semantics (which is quite useful), but represent > different formalisms. > > Very good point. The RIF should, I beleive, gfollow the same way. And please, let us avoid being "fundamentalist" about languages or language paradigms or kinds of rules, etc. One might dislike some. This does not make them useless or undesirable. Maybe in another world, a specific logic will make it possible to avoid the separation of tongues of this world's computing. But the RIF is for this world, not for the next. Francois
Received on Friday, 2 June 2006 07:48:10 UTC