- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:42:26 -0400
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Michael, > > You are right (of course :-) and rule do not have any kind of special > first-class existence in logic. But shouldn't they, nonetheless, have > some kind of first-class existence in a rule interchange format? They already do have first-class existence. Adding a wrapper does not add anything but bloat. > Michael Kifer wrote: > > > > The Rule wrapper is unacceptable from the FLD point of view. > > I am glad that there is FLD to keep us honest :-) > > And this extra wrapper is just bloat that gives nothing. > > > > All this mess indicates to me that the only good solution is our original > > proposal to use Group only. All the talk about the first-class existence > > for rules reminds me medieval disputations about how many devils can fit on > > a needle point. > > Or, couldn't "all this mess" indicate that trying to have RIF-FLD cover > FOL is just trying to embrace too much at this stage? It is not FOL that I am worried about. There are important systems, like DLV and smodels, which I am worried about. Calling their constructs "rules" is possible, but is a bit of a stretch. > I can envision that there could be a future LIFE WG (logic interchange > format for everyone) chartered to develop a logic dialect framework that > would encompass RIF-FLD (the framework for logic dialects of the rule > interchange format) as a special case for the kind of formulae that some > user/developer communities call "rules"... > > Just thinking about what is a reasonable scope for this WG, and where to > stop... Why are you talking with riddles? Are you proposing to junk FLD? --michael > Christian > >
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 16:43:51 UTC