- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:06:16 -0500
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 12:59 -0400, Michael Kifer wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 09:07 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > On May 27, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Michael Kifer wrote: > > > > Peter, > > > > > > > > It is no big deal to be unitary by restricting the language to Datalog. > > > > You don't even need to limit it to a function-free sublanguage. In our > > > > roadmap the language was unitary also up to this point. > > > > > > > > The issue is how to build such a system in an extensible way so that it > > > > could be extended to satisfy most of the RIF requirements. > > > > > > Which requirements? > > > > I'd really appreciate an answer, please. > > > > Which (candidate) requirement(s) do you have in mind > > there, Michael? > > Sorry, I thought it was a rhetorical question. Oops; I'll try to be more clear in the future... > The issues are integration with NAF, constraints, production and active > rules. All these are requirements coming from the group members. I'm having trouble finding them among the requirements materials on the ftf agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3 which are, as far as I can tell... http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework and http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Critical_Factors_Analysis I see "FOL vs. other semantics" but that doesn't really state a testable requirement related to NAF. Some of the others are easier to spot... "The RIF should support production rules." I don't know how to measure/test that one. Does the "Extensible Design" proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0068.html meet these requirements? Hmm... I think I have a lot of study to do before I can understand that proposal very well. Do you have a few minutes to give some examples of NAF, constraints, production, and active rules in that design? I feel that partial understanding aka http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Sound_reasoning_with_unknown_dialects is pretty important, and as far as I can tell, it conflicts with NAF. As Sandro and are are the only evident supporters, I wonder if this partial understanding requirement will even get ftf time. I'll have to take another look at the use cases http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Use_Cases and see if any of them argues for partial understanding. Darn; I don't see links from any of the use cases to requirements... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 18:06:38 UTC