Re: To embed or combine

The most important argument is that the embedding stands on its own feet,
while the combined semantics is of limited use, since we need the embedding
anyway. So, the combined semantics seems to me just an unnecessary add-on.

Regarding (2) my argument was not what you wrote, but that Jos' document
essentially specifies a full-blown combined language. The embedding alone
is sufficient in my view. It allows people to use rules and RDF together,
but it does not define a normative combined language.  By defining an
embedding, we already achieve all the goals with respect to RDF, which were
listed in the charter.


	--michael  

> <chair>
> The status of the discussion regarding Jos' RDF compatibility section appears to 
> be mired in whether the normative semantics of RDF in RIF should be specified in 
> the model theory through a "combination" of RIF and RDF semantics, or through an 
> "embedding" of RDF semantics in RIF (as rules).  The two approaches have been 
> shown by Jos to be equivalent.
> 
> At the moment I have not seen any technical arguments supporting one approach or 
> the other.  Michael prefers the "embedding" on the basis that:
> 
> (1) the "combination" is more complicated than the "embedding" and thus more 
> difficult to understand.
> 
> (2) it is not our job viz. our charter to specify a model theoretic approach to 
> the RDF/RIF combination
> 
> Jos seems to prefer the "combination" and argues re: (1) that:
> 
> (3) it is no more difficult to understand the "combination" than the RIF model 
> theory.
> 
> As chair, my own read of the charter does not provide any particular help on 
> (2), I'm not quite sure what Michael is referring to there.  It is certainly our 
> job to specify how RIF and RDF should be used together, and as chair I interpret 
> this as meaning we should have a normative standard for that.
> 
> Thus, as suggested by Michael, it seems to me we are at a difference in 
> preference only, and I see no alternative other than to call a vote.  It seems 
> to me the vote is about which approaches to make *normative*:
> 
> 1) The model-theoretic "combination" of RIF and RDF is normative
> 2) The "embedding" of RDF semantics as RIF rules is normative
> 3) Both the "combination" and "embedding" are normative (What would that mean?)
> </chair>
> 
> -Chris
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
> +1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
> cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 02:34:56 UTC