- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:43:01 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: >> Sandro Hawke wrote: >> >>> To help keep us on track for Phase 1, the charter gives us a limit >>> (roughly Horn rules) on which features of each system we will cover. >>> Within that limit, I'm not sure there are many questions about which >>> systems to cover. >>> >> "Roughly Horn rules" seems to exclude >> >> - production rules (and ECA/reaction rules) >> > > 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. > I hardly see what the benefit would be to mix-up Horn and production rules. This would open the door to misunderstanding - and would not be substantiated by existing research results. >> Ian Horrocks wrote: >> >>> If the RIF supports rules with different meanings (i.e., >>> where different behaviour of the consuming system is >>> expected), then clearly >>> they would need to be distinguished. I don't see anyone >>> disagreeing about that. >>> >> 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? > Again, look at trhe practice. Would it be a good thing to pretend to re-invent the wheel? François
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 14:43:10 UTC