- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:42:27 +0200
- To: "'Christian de Sainte Marie'" <csma@ilog.fr>, <public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org>
> If FOL is not a good > candidate (as Jim at least hinted), I would be interested to > understand > why; and we would also need to find out what would be a good > candidate; What do you mean by FOL? Do you mean classical standard (i.e. textbook) first-order predicate logic? Or do you mean Common Logic, which is also a FOL (since its higher-order constructs can be eliminated)? Or do you mean partial first-order predicate logic, which would be more suitable, since it allows indeterminate truth values, as we have them in SQL and OCL? > - Non-monotony: most applications/engines/rule bases that > rely on SNAF > also rely on monotonic inference/languages (well, I do not know for > most; but some certainly do). It works because they actually rely on > bounded monotony, only the bound is implicit (and, in most of > the cases, obvious: a session, an inference cycle, whatever). How would you define your notion of "bounded monotony"? It's not clear for me what you mean by that. -Gerd
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 14:44:19 UTC