Re: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR

From: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Subject: RE: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:46:47 +0200

> > ... I don't see how an interchange language
> > that doesn't interchange between logical and production rules is going
> > help push either logical or production rules into the sphere of the
> > other.  
> 
> You seem to overlook the fact that pure assertion PRs 
> correspond to (in fact, implement) logical derivation 
> rules, and so there is the possibility of interchange 
> between the two.

How so?

If there is a natural relationship between logical derivation rules and
pure assertion PRs (which I take to be PRs that are both order- and
precedence-independent and side-effect-free except for heads making logical
assertions) then an interchange language that *doesn't* interchange between
them is certainly not going to help.

> > ... I just don't see any resultant forces towards helping 
> > production rules enter the Semantic Web 
> 
> Didn't they enter the Semantic Web already in the form of 
> cwm, Euler and Jena rules (I think these are PR systems)?

cwm, Euler, and Jena are indeed rule systems that abide by at least some of
the desiderata of the Semantic Web.  They are not part of the "official"
Semantic Web (i.e., W3C recommendations).  I wouldn't put them in the same
category as OPS-derived rules, and I don't think that they easily fit into
a more general production rule category.

> -Gerd

peter

Received on Friday, 2 June 2006 11:23:47 UTC