W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2006

Re: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:34:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20060602.073413.55275123.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, sandro@w3.org

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 12:13:17 -0500

> moved to www-archive; feel free to cite/forward...
> 
> Sandro, Peter, are you interested to fill me in?
> 
> On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 12:02 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > From: "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>
> > Subject: RE: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR
> > Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 04:03:30 -0500
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > Qu: What are your arguments *AGAINST* PRR support for the widespread
> > > adoption [goal]?
> > 
> > >From viewpoint that I espouse: 
> > 
> > 1/ PRR support opposes alignment with the Semantic Web, because it requires
> >    concepts that are alien to the Semantic Web, and alignment with the
> >    Semantic Web supports widescale adoption.
> 
> concepts such as... ?

Operational semantics or no semantics.

> > 2/ PRR support opposes low cost of implementation, because it requires a
> >    complex, non-coherent formalism.
> 
> which complex formalism? pointer to details?
> 
> I see...
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Extended_RIF_must_support_production_rules
> 
> but with no links to what production rules are.

Look at the documentation available from the rule vendors.  Historical
information can be found in various places, including

T. Cooper and N. Wogrin, Rule-Based Programming with OPS5. Morgan-Kaufmann
Pub., 1988


> > 3/ PRR support opposes no surprises, because PRRs are inherently
> >    surprising.
> 
> An example would help.

Hmm.  PRRs are non-monotonic in various ways, including

P(x) -> Q(x)
P(x), R(x) -> K(x)

P(a)  R(a)

not implying Q(a)

This often leads to surprises.

> > 4/ PRR support opposes the support of logical rules, because PRRs are
> >    non-logical.
> 
> I don't see much about logic in
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%
> 2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements
> nor
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints

Probably not.

> Sandro, while looking for the above pointers,
> I added some links to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3

> > Most of the above arguments depend on the PRR support being interpreted as
> > support of the inherently operational aspects of PRRs.  If instead, PRR
> > support can be done from a simple, standard logical language, then these
> > arguments have much less weight.
> > 
> > > Qu: What alternative to PRs will fulfil the widespread adoption CSF?
> > 
> > The diagram has already several alternatives.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

peter
Received on Friday, 2 June 2006 11:34:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:57 UTC