- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:58:07 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Bijan Parsia wrote: > What I don't see is the reason for specifying particular proof > procedures *instead of* expressive subsets. Responsiveness > requirements are application dependent, not document dependent (as far > as I can tell). That is, you want to *in the context of a particular > application* specify which reasoner, given certain parameters, to use. > If two reasoners perform acceptibly and give the same answers...what > *more* do you need? Let consider an analogy. Assume oner wants to insert a data item I in a collection C of data items and get the resulting collection sorted. Depending on whethner C is sorted or not, this can be done in different manners with considerably different complexities. Similar cases will arise with RIF applications. Drawing consequences from facts and deduction rules, checking if normative rules are satisified or not, or drawing consequences from general rules (or formulas) are three different tasks. The semantics of these tasks might well be expressable in the same manner. But performing these three tasks at acceptable, state-of-the-art efficiency requires different methods. My suggestion is to make annotations (to RIF rulersets) possible using which one could specify such different tasks and thus giving hints at how to perform them efficiently. I do not see any darwbacks in making such annotations possible. I see considerable drawnbacks in not making such annotations possible. Regards, François
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 08:58:15 UTC