- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:55:12 +0100
- To: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Michael Kifer wrote: >IMO, it would be preferable that integrity constraint can be expressed in RIF without having to be re-writen eg using the above-mentioned transformation. > > By the way, this transformation amounts to negation: A => (B or C) |=| A & not (B or C) => false |=| not(A & not (B or C)) >I think we have a consensus that we should not tackle disjunctions in the >heads of *deductive* rules in Phase 1. > I would prefer not to have such a restriction because it would preclude a natural, ie non-encoded, representation of IC, and would prevent handling negociations. >Since we already discussed that RIF rulesets could be tagged with semantics >to let the recipient understand the intended meaning, I don't see >significant obstacles to allowing disjunctions in the heads of deductive >rules when these are tagged with classical or stable-model semantics. The >recipient engine can reject such rules, if it doesn't have an engine to >process them. > > +1 Francois
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:55:23 UTC