- From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:23:20 +0200
- To: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
- Cc: <public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org>,<www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, <edbark@nist.gov>,"Michael Kifer" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>,<james.lynn@hp.com>
At 17:51 23.08.2005 -0400, Adrian Walker wrote: >Dieter -- > >At 10:12 PM 8/23/2005 +0200, you wrote: >>it is not that difficult to identify something around Horn logic >>with a minimal model as common ground of state of the art rule languages. > >That's similar to how we do things in our online system [1]. I wish it >was the case that all significant rule systems could be covered in that way. > >But I'm afraid that the various procedural rule languages, in which rule >order and other factors determine whether a rule will "fire", are simply >not amenable to that kind of treatment. Indeed neither the charter draft nor my proposal are able to straight forward cover many procedural aspects of such languages. I would see this as a second step to tackle with. In general, implementing too much of a control flow in a rule language comes dangerously close to go-to programming anyway. -- dieter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/ Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 22:23:31 UTC