Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal 
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:18:01 -0400

> 
> > From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
> > Subject: Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal 
> > Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 21:22:07 -0400
> > 
> > > 
> > > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

[...]

> > > > OK, so if in addition the proposal is extended by adding in the standard
> > > > way of providing meaning to non-atomic syntactic constructs, then it can
> > > > finally talk about satisfying the condition above, provided that the rule
> > > > formalism *exactly* matches up with one of the RIF "dialects" (to the
> > > > extent of having the exact same set of interpretations).
> > > 
> > > It is actually more general than that. There are only a few different types
> > > of interpretations (2-valued, 3-valued, etc.) so it would work for any kind
> > > of dialect that uses one of these in its definition of semantics.
> > > (Recall that the proposal talks only about the notion of satisfaction in an
> > > interpretation.)
> > 
> > How is it more general?  You are requiring the same interpretations on
> > either side of your condition,
> 
> Not quite. If mappings between interpretations can be established then they
> don't have to be the same.
> 
> > so it looks to me that two rule systems that
> > differ at all in their model theory will require a different RIF dialect.
> 
> but basically - yes. If somebody comes up with a rule system that uses
> an unheard-of model theory then this would require a new dialect. I see no
> way around this short of telling people to stop innovating.

I believe, on the other hand, that the RIF should be "unitary", at least
for phase 1, and that rule systems demonstrate compliance by translating
their syntax into and out of the RIF in a way that preserves some notion of
equivalent behaviour between the system and inference in the RIF on a
(reasonable) subset of the RIF's syntax.

[...]

> 	--michael  

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Friday, 19 May 2006 11:06:41 UTC