W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Rules WG -- draft charter -- NAF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:33:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20031118.123314.25363283.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: stefan@ISI.EDU
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org

From: Stefan Decker <stefan@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rules WG -- draft charter -- NAF
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:13:36 +0000

> >Where did Description Logics come into the story?  Just about any language
> >that goes beyond ground atomic facts and datalog has this issue.  How would
> >you close P(a) v P(b) with respect to P?  Even just adding functional
> >properties to RDFS causes issues.
> Maybe we should start slowly by defining exactly what the problem is that the
> rule language is supposed to solve, and then we may try to look for solutions.
> It could be a good start if we are just defining rules for RDF graphs and 
> not take the
> semantics of the language encoded in the RDF graph into account.

Huh?  How is this going to get anywhere?  Why would anyone care about a
rule system that acts on the syntax of RDF (or, for that matter, on the
syntax of any logic)?  I see no benefit whatsoever along this path.

> If we want to take the semantics into account, let us try to define what the
> problem is, and look at which part of the problem a rule language can 
> solve, and
> how to incorporate solutions for the other problems.
> Do you have a definition of the problem you are trying to solve?

No, but I'm not trying to restrict the possible solutions, either.  All
I've been saying is that CWA and other circumscriptive notions have a
decided cost in very many settings.

> Best,
>          Stefan

Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 12:33:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:46:16 UTC