- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:40:59 -0500
- To: axel@polleres.net
- Cc: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
OK, I cleaned up this use case. --michael > 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 Wednesday, 8 March 2006 07:17:28 UTC