- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:54:58 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Pat, > >Please don't crosspost mail to rdf-core. w3c-rdf-core is a WG >only mailing list. > >I guess you didn't cross post, but you have kinda invited your >correspondent to post to this list and I'm not sure why. > >This looks like a conversation to have on the rules list. You >can always draw the WG attention to it, for those interested. > >Brian > Whoops, sorry, that was a mailing typo. I will redefine my email nicknames: rdfc and rdfr are too similar, obviously. Pat > > > > >Pat Hayes wrote: > >>>[freed from spam trap -rrs] >>> >>>Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 17:28:51 -0400 (EDT) >>>Message-ID: <511BB18E82E9D11188230008C724064602D9DDAC@tmex1.tm.tue.nl> >>>From: "Wagner, G.R." <G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl> >>>To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider '" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, >>> "'eric@w3.org '" <eric@w3.org> >>>Cc: "'www-rdf-rules@w3.org '" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org> >>> >>>>> Thanks for the clarification. I propose that we use a term for the >>>>> antecedent that is NOT "assertion". Furthur, I propose that this term >>>>> either be "query" or that the definition express the commonality with >>>>> queries. >>>> >>> >>>> I propose that we do not do this. I oppose calling the antecedant of a >>>> rule anything other than the antecedant of a rule! >>> >>> >>>It's not a matter of how you call it, but what form it may >>>have, or, in other words, from which language it comes. >>>Obviously, any practical KR system, such as Prolog, relational >>>databases, or RDF, has an assertion (or input) language defining >>>the admissible (logical) expressions that may be asserted/inserted >>>into a KB, and it has a query language defining the admissible >>>expressions for querying/retrieving knowledge. >> >> >>Sorry, but I don't find that at all obvious, particularly if it is >>supposed to imply that these must be different languages. And it >>IS a matter of how you call it; we are having a debate here about >>proper terminology. Such discussions do matter, since enormous >>amounts of time can be wasted in an interdisciplinary discussion by >>inadvertant clashes of terminology. For example: >> >>>Both with respect to bottom-up and to top-down evaluation >> >> >>These terms 'bottom-up' and 'top-down' are meaningless to me, I'm >>afraid. Apparently they are based on some kind of vertical analogy, >>but I don't know which way up the paper is supposed to be; I tend >>to think from left to right, forwards and backwards. >> >>>it is >>>natural then to define a derivation rule for a specific KR system >>>in such a way that its antecedant is a query expression and its >>>consequent is an input expression. >> >> >>I have no idea what 'query expression' and 'input expression' mean >>here. In my terminology, a query expression would be one which was >>used for querying, so it presumably couldn't possibly be *part* of >>a rule (though it might match a part of a rule). >><speech> >>My basic point is that the functional roles of expressions and >>parts of expressions in an inference or rule-manipulating system >>should not be identified with their syntactic or logical >>descriptions, since the same structure, with the same logical >>meaning, can often be used for different functional purposes in >>different contexts. More generally, it is mistake to identify >>logical or assertional meaning with any particular kind of >>processing; the basic utility of logical analyses of meaning is >>that they allow different computational strategies to co-exist. So >>I want us not to adopt terminology which makes such identifications >>pre-emptively. >></speech> >> >> >>Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 12:55:02 UTC