- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:08:49 -0500
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 11:01, pat hayes wrote: > [...] > >Moreover, I maintain that horn rules is a correct implementation > >strategy, and I consider anything to the contrary a bug. > > ?? Like, translating into FOL and using resolution is a bug? Or using > a tableaux reasoner (like the industrial-strength Manchester OWL > reasoners) is a bug? Or using a subgraph-cluster checker for handling > very large sets is a bug? (etc.) That seems silly. No, I didn't mean "any other implementation strategy is a bug". I meant "anything in the semantics document that shows that implementing with a horn reasoner won't work is a bug". > I think of the horn rules as a kind of reasoner-erector-set. You can > put it together fast, you have the parts pre-built, you don't need a > shop, and it even works pretty well; but its not necessarily what a > professional would use. (Which is fine, of course, provided we don't > make professionalism illegal.) > > Pat -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 12:08:50 UTC