- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 12:02:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: PaulVincent@fairisaac.com
- Cc: bparsia@isr.umd.edu, public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com> Subject: RE: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 04:03:30 -0500 [...] > Qu: What are your arguments *AGAINST* PRR support for the widespread > adoption [goal]? >From viewpoint that I espouse: 1/ PRR support opposes alignment with the Semantic Web, because it requires concepts that are alien to the Semantic Web, and alignment with the Semantic Web supports widescale adoption. 2/ PRR support opposes low cost of implementation, because it requires a complex, non-coherent formalism. 3/ PRR support opposes no surprises, because PRRs are inherently surprising. 4/ PRR support opposes the support of logical rules, because PRRs are non-logical. Most of the above arguments depend on the PRR support being interpreted as support of the inherently operational aspects of PRRs. If instead, PRR support can be done from a simple, standard logical language, then these arguments have much less weight. > Qu: What alternative to PRs will fulfil the widespread adoption CSF? The diagram has already several alternatives. [...] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 16:02:33 UTC