- From: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:35:25 -0800
- To: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Cc: "'RIF WG'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
This example hints at something that I too have been mulling over. 1. There is a significant loss of information going from F-logic to the current RIF proposal. The same would be true for Go! (although for different reasons). I contend that (a) for any given language there will likely be significant loss of information in going from a specific language to a LCD language (Least Common Denominator) and (b) that loss is likely not acceptable. 2. I think that one route to interchange could be via the RIFRAF. I.e., if we allow a language designer to specific the ontology of his or her language and then use ontology mapping between language ontologies, then you can potentially construct a mapping from one language to another. That way the RIF is not actually a rule language but an ontology framework for describing rule languages. Frank On Oct 31, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Gerd Wagner wrote: > > Here is a brief discussion of some F-Logic rule examples > and the translations to and back from current RIF Core: > > http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/R2ML/FLogicRules.xhtml > > These examples raise the question of how vocabularies are > combined with rules (or how rules are based on vocabularies). > > -Gerd > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2006 18:36:02 UTC