From: Frank van Harmelen (Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl)
Date: 06/05/01
I wrote: > >Instead, we are designing a language > >1. that draws conclusions (and not one that makes transformations), > >2. for DAML+OIL (and not for arbitrary RDF). > >that is: rules which logical conclusions that are sanctioned by the > >semantics of DAML+OIL. > why designing a language and cripple the scope when the broader language > can do everything? Stefan replied (in an off-line email): > Transforming RDF provides the means for manipulating languages. > Of course the rules that manipulate have to respect the semantics of the > languages, but thats the responsibility of the rules author. BIG DISAGREEMENT! I would expect DAML+OIL rules always to respect DAML+OIL semantics, ie: if S is some statement which I hold true, and R is a rule which I hold true, than the result of applying R to S is a conclusion which I must unavoidably regard as true. I wouldn't want DAML+OIL rules to be so flexible that authors could write rules for which the above didn't hold. If DAML+OIL rules would be "just" RDF transformation rules, authors could write such nonsensical (non-semantics respecting) rules. Stefan added: > Not doing what I propose means the DAML+OIL rule language would be > superfluous very shortly. I think an RDF transformation rule and a DAML+OIL inference rule are two very different animals. We should be clear on which one we are breeding. Frank. ----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST