- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 03:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu> Subject: Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1 Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 03:25:58 -0400 > > > From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu> > > Subject: Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1 > > Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 19:34:17 -0400 > > > > > Peter, > > > > > > It is no big deal to be unitary by restricting the language to Datalog. > > > You don't even need to limit it to a function-free sublanguage. In our > > > roadmap the language was unitary also up to this point. > > > > OK. > > > > > The issue is how to build such a system in an extensible way so that it > > > could be extended to satisfy most of the RIF requirements. > > > > Well, this is at least one of issues. However, I don't see any particular > > preference for divergent semantics here. > > I am not sure if I understand you here correctly, but what I meant was that > anything we do in Phase 1 needs to have a clear path to enabling further > extensions. Well, at least it has to have a path to satisficing the requirements of Phase 2. > These planned extensions will most likely influence Phase 1 > because, for example, we need a way to say what the syntax and semantics of > a rule set is intended to be. I think that we need this already for Phase 1. Without semantics, what good is RIF? > Even though this might seem unnecessary in > the unitary world, this same rule set will have to live in a Phase 2 > world with other semantics, so it must be prepared to declare its > characteristics in that larger context. Well, this assumes, for starters, that there will be other, divergent, semantics in Phase 2. I do not conceed this point. However, even if this were the case, how do divergent semantics in Phase 2 require divergent semantics in Phase 1? > --michael Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Sunday, 28 May 2006 07:44:27 UTC