- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:13:36 -0400 (EDT)
- To: welty@us.ibm.com
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
>From http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Critical_Factors_Analysis and the requirements slides: A 'no surprises' rule interchange is only possible if the original semantics of the rule sets to be interchanged is specified. Thus, a means is needed for specifying which formal semantics the rule set to be interchanged has. I do not believe that this is correct, at least in the way that it appears to be driving at, i.e., some syntactic means in RIF documents to differentiate between different original semantics. Consider, for example, KIF (the Knowledge Interchange Format - one starting point is http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/kif.html). In this interchange format there is no tagging of the original semantics - instead the interchange format is supposed to be universal in some sense, but unitary. [This should not, in any way, be considered to be an endorsement of KIF.] Consider as well an "intersection" RIF that only tries to interchange the absolutely common part of different rule formalisms (assuming, sort of, that this common part is non-empty). Again there is no need to specify the original semantics of the rule set. One could also have a "best effort" kind of RIF, where the translations from different rule formalisms abstracted from the original semantics into a common semantic rule framework. Here again there is no need to specify the original semantics of the rule set. peter
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 11:14:22 UTC