- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:27:58 +0100
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Francois Bry'" <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > And none of these computational logic distinctions are > > reflected in standard FOL (and neither are they in OWL/SWRL): > > you can't simply combine them and submit their merge to > > a "reasoner"! > > The first two seem to be very much in the domain of FOL, to > me, and it's > my impression that there are some reasonable approaches to the third > based on some kind of "scoping". For instance, it seems common > knowledge that database views are datalog, an obvious sub-language of > FOL. Yes, it's a sublanguage of many FOLs, not just of standard classcial FOL. All of them agree on the the semantics of this simple fragment, but as soon as you add a less innocent logical operator, such as negation or implication, they disagree. Constructive negation and constructive implication are different from standard FOL/OWL/SWRL negation and implication. > My sense of your overall message is that you want distributed > programming instead of distributed knowledge representation. Is that > about right? No, I'd like to consider distributed processing, and not just distributed reasoning (or do you think all processing is reasoning?). -Gerd
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 14:31:19 UTC