- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:41:11 +0100
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> What about production rules where the only action is assert? > Are those > too different from Horn to count as "Roughly Horn" or are > they just not interesting enough to bother with. They are too limited to be of an use. For instance, while a virtual view (in a database) could be defined with the help of a "Horn derivation rule", the corresponding materialized view could not be defined with a corresponding "Horn production rule" (because keeping the materialzed view up-to-date would require a complementary retraction rule). But this question should really be answered by our production rule experts from ILOG and Fair Isaac. > > OK, then we agree on Francois' proposal to mark/annotate > > the distinction between these different types of rules > > (I think this was the main point of the debate, and not > > the issue of efficient proof theories). > > I think the key question is to what extent we want to support > different > types of semantics for rules with the same syntax. > Is that really a good thing? Are you asking if it's really a good thing to support both derivation rules and integrity rules/constraints? (These two types of rules are distinguished both in SQL and in OCL.) -Gerd
Received on Sunday, 12 March 2006 23:44:27 UTC