Re: [RIF] Extensible Design

From: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Subject: RE: [RIF] Extensible Design 
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 22:31:55 +0200

> > > Hopefully there can be many modules shared between 
> > > dialects, where both the syntax and semantics are 
> > > shared. I'm not sure if it'll ever make sense to share 
> > > syntax but not semantics for some part of a language.
> > 
> > Well, it seems to me that the proposal by Boley et al 
> > advocates precisely this view. My reading of the 
> > proposal is that several (perhaps many) RIF dialects 
> > will share the same syntax (or very similar syntaxes) 
> > for conditions but will diverge on semantics.
> 
> Let me try to elaborate on this observation:
> 
> 1) The RIF family will consist of several branches
> of dialects, most of which overlap in their condition
> language. Each branch will have a core, which
> defines the common syntax and semantics of the branch.
> Extensions of this core define additional syntax and
> semantics.
> 
> 2) Most RIF dialects will not only share the syntax
> but also the semantics of conditions (except for
> normative/integrity rules, which do, in general, not 
> have conditions).

Hmm.  I don't read this in the proposal at all.  My understanding is that
in the proposal the semantics of conditions varies between FOL dialects and
LP dialects and even varies between different LP dialects.

> 3) Data literals, object names, function symbols
> and predicate symbols may be typed. Using suitable
> predicate/atom types, this allows to represent RDF 
> and OWL rules directly (and not only via a "query 
> interface").

Again, I don't see this in the proposal.  (Not that I don't think that it
is a good idea, however.)

> -Gerd

peter

Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 20:46:10 UTC