- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:32:12 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it> writes: > > 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, It is already in the charter that phase 1 is Horn. However, the design should be such that the extensions required by our use cases will be possible. This requires a lot of thought and preliminary design. > 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. Most useful, tried-and-true rule-based languages are based on CWA and production rules. They have much greater expressive power and cannot be translated into Phase 1. Only their Horn subsets can. But I don't understand how your answer negates anything in my earlier email. --michael
Received on Friday, 19 May 2006 18:32:20 UTC