Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited) --> disjunctive conclusions

Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> >  

The attribution here is wrong. I didn't write the above.
But yes, this is what Lloyd-Topor is about.

> 
> 
> 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.

Then we will not have phase 1 in the foreseeable future.


	--michael

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 14:39:24 UTC