- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@uibk.ac.at>
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:07:48 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Michael Kifer wrote: >>As per the action item given to me at today's telecom this use case is >>now accessible at >> >>http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Candidate_Use_Cases_for_2nd_Draft/PublicationAlternative >> >> >>Allen > > > The last section, on negation is empty and is kind of out of place in that > use case. I am not sure which "section on negation" you are referring to?!? This shall be a simple use case on the use of implicit metadata via interlinked rule bases published on the Web and also the use of scoped negation in such a scenario. These are the two aspects I was missing in the UCR document so far. The need for RIF to define the exact interchange/interaction of such rulesbases manifests in the derived requirements: 1. Distributed rulesets on the Web shall provide means to decribe implicit interlinked metadata by rules. 2. Cyclic/Recursive dependencies of rulesets deserve special care which makes general interlinked rules more involved than simple one-way RDF data access via SPARQL. 3. Negation in queries needs to be explicitly scoped in order not to result in possibly unsound inferences due to incomplete information. > There is quite a reasonable use case > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Scoped_negation%2C_Encapsulation > which covers this issue. Whatever use case covers both abovementioned aspects is fine with me. I don't see how your proposed use case is any simpler/clearer with respect to what I aim at. Do you propose two separate new use cases on these aspects? best, axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres email: axel@polleres.net url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 23:08:22 UTC