- From: Stefan Decker <stefan@ISI.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:13:06 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Peter,
>Huh? How are mediums for the exchange of data significantly different from
>logics? Do you really mean to have rules work on the syntax of RDF?
>
>To me, a rule that works on the syntax of RDF would be something like:
>
>if <rdf:Description rdf:type="?x" ??a>??y</rdf:Description>
>then <?x ??a>??y</?x>
>
>which converts some RDF/XML syntax into a shorthand form with the same
>meaning.
That I meant was something working on the RDF graph, not the XML syntax.
The RDF graph might be syntax again for something else (e.g., an OWL Ontology).
> > > > 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.
> > Definitely - if we talk about circumscription for FOL theories.
> > Non-monotonic operators for datalog are much cheaper.
> > Lets find out what we want.
>
>Agreed, but then pronouncements like ``CWA is easy'' should not be allowed
>because we don't yet know whether the problem will admit a solution where
>CWA is indeed easy.
I was just talking about CWA on a graph.
Best,
Stefan
> > Best,
> > Stefan
>
>peter
--
http://www.isi.edu/~stefan
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 13:13:15 UTC