- From: Hassan Aït-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:05:03 -0800
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Christian, I am not sure I understand exacty what your point is. -hak Christian de Sainte Marie wrote: > Hassan Aït-Kaci wrote: > >> >> (3) other data models may be accommodated using this "data model as >> constraint system" paradigm and conjugated with definite clauses >> using the CLP scheme in order to obtain Horn-like rule systems >> over varied data types (e.g., Java, C#, or C++ classes/objects). >> > > We agreed that RIF would specify a common expression language from which > the various RIF dialects will draw (by restricting which expressions are > allowed in the LHS/condition, RHS/conclusion, and constraint expressions > [1]). > > [1] E.g., CORE will probably allow only a conjunction of atoms in the > body and a single atom in the head. > > Don't we need to associate constraints to said language expressions, > instead of at the rule level only (as we discussed and decided at F2F4), > if we want that good property of data model abstraction brought by the > constraint paradigm to apply to the ground arguments and locally bound > variables in the expressions? > > If not, how comes that we do not need to abstract the data model in > order to agree on the semantics of expressions in the expression > language, but we need it for rules (or that the abstraction can be > implicit at the expression level but not at the rule level)? > > Christian > > > -- Hassan Aït-Kaci ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D tel/fax: +1 (604) 930-5603 - email: hak @ ilog . com
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 16:06:29 UTC