- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:49:17 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Michael Kifer wrote: >> My understanding is that derivation rules and integrity constraints are >> just a bifurcation of Horn rules (or sometimes the two halves of >> something beyond Horn). As such they fit easily into the same >> semantics. >> >> - sandro >> > > Depends what you call "semantics". They have the same first-order > semantics in the sense that if you give me a first-order interpretation > then the definition of what it means for each such rule to hold in that > interpretation is the same in both cases. > > But Horn-rules-as-constraints are reasoned with differently from > Horn-rules-as-derivation-rules. > I agree. > > I suppose that this is what Francois wanted to convey when he proposed > annotating rules with reasoning methods, This is what I wanted to convey. Thanks, Michael, for making the point! Francois PS: I do not follow you in the non-FOL of ICs...
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 14:49:27 UTC