- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:54:25 -0400
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: jos.deroo@agfa.com, Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, dieter.fensel@deri.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Michael Kifer writes:
> Merging rules is a whole different ball of hair. As far as I
> can tell, logical reasoning (monotonic or nonmonotonic) is not what you
> would use here. This is an intellectual activity, which can be automated
> with the help of heuristics (which are not logical inference rules),
> machine learning, etc.
>
> I bet, however, that **if** you decide to encode those rule-merging
> heuristics in a rule-based language (and not in Java, for instance) then
> you would prefer a Prolog-like language with S/NAF rather than FOL.
The Semantic Web applications I'm familiar with (including everything
based on cwm, some of my prolog work, and various things I hear about)
all merge rulesets freely by just puting them together (concatenation,
set-union, conjunction, etc). It's trivial with RDF, OWL, N3, and FOL
(when you use URIs for names). It sounds like it might be very hard
or impossible with rules written in a non-monotonic language.
Is this the root of all the tension around NAF/LP/etc?
-- sandro
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 20:54:30 UTC