From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 06/09/01
On June 5, Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes: > From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl> > Subject: Re: rule proto-proposal > Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:38:34 +0200 > > > 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. > > ---- > > I agree with Frank on this issue. I would like to add my agreement to the record. Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST