- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 17:18:17 +0200
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: > (general agreement -- a few comments.) > > >> It seems to me that behind the "soundness" discussions, the "semantics" >> issue is re-emerging. My understandsing is as follows: >> >> 1. Interchange of rules and rule sets originally specified after >> different semantics is needed. Therefore, the possibility of RIF rules >> and rule sets with different semantics should be a requirement. >> > > I understand you to be saying RIF will need to have different dialects, > each with its own semantics. Are you thinking of 2-5 standard dialects > or more than 6? > The aboved does not refer directly or necessarily to several dialectrs. It means exactly whgat ui worte, not less, not more. E.g. I couldd say, rule set ( not a => b, not b => a } with FOL semantics or rule set ( not a => b, not b => a } with well-founded semantics. I see no dialects there. > And if more more than 6, so you see a way to keep this manageable? > > >> 2. Such an interchange is only possible if the original semantics of the >> rules and rule sets to be interchanged is specified. Therefore, the >> possibility to specify a semantics for a rule or rule set should be a >> requirement. >> > > That only comes up if there were rulesets with the same syntax by > different semantics, right? Not only. This is onlty one possibility -- but surely a possibility worthwhile to consider. > But that's only one approach: we could use > different syntax (eg different namespaces or different element names) > whereever we need different semantics. > If the semantics is the same, I could be rather awkward to offer different suyntaxes. >> B1. fixpoint of an immediate consequence function (over rule sets and >> facts). >> B2. conflict resolution function (together with fixpoint of an immediate >> consequence function). >> > > Some of us may not be familiar with these. Can you point us to some web > pages about them? (maybe via the Wiki) > I'll do my best, as soon as I have more time. I would have thopught rthat both concepts were well-known. Maybe could some one else give pointers? Hassan, could you please help? >> 4. The notion of "sound" inferences from RIF rules and rule sets can, >> and I think should, be defined as: inferences after the specified >> semantics. >> > > I think that's what I've been saying. *shrug* Sorry if somehow it > seemed different. > Then, it is great! We were speaking the same language but did niot know! :-) Regards, François
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 15:18:25 UTC