- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 10:31:39 +0200
- To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > 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. The proposal is focused on positive condition formulas as a starting point. Your point is that the semantics for satisfaction of FOL conditions and of LP conditions varies because of the difference of allowing arbitary interpretations versus allowing only (infinite) Herbrand interpretations, right? OK, but still this is only a small variation which you should be able to come to terms with. > > 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.) The proposal contains the following sentence: "Sorts can also be optionally added to function symbols and predicates in order to support sorted languages", which probably should be a bit more elaborated. -Gerd
Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 08:31:42 UTC