From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 02/28/02
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: Re: DQL Description (for today's telecon) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:23:55 -0600 > >I have several comments on the DQL informal description. > > > >First, I would much prefer to have a definition of what querying is > >supposed to be separated from all the interface ``fluff''. > > I think that your comment reflects a failure to grasp our point. The > idea of allowing wrappers is not "interface fluff", but is an > integral aspect of the proposal. I know it mixes together procedural > and logical matters, but that is a design decision, since the > querying process has both procedural and logical aspects, in our > view, and it is better to try to keep them separate. Wrappers? I'm uncertain as to what you mean by this. If you mean the continuation stuff then I disagree. Why not have a completely non-procedural description of answers and only then define how the interface works? [...] > >The interface itself needs to talk about completeness and fairness. > > Why? It is not a spec designed to be able to *prove* that a KB will > eventually answer a query. I don't see any reason to impose > completeness and fairness as part of the spec.What problems would > this avoid? (I suspect you are letting the demands of theory > over-ride those of a standard. ) I believe that your spec would allow a system to respond a,a,a,a,a,a,a,.... when the answer is a,b,c,d,e This should at least be not recommended. peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST