Re: DQL Description (for today's telecon)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 02/28/02

From: Pat Hayes <>
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


when the answer is


This should at least be not recommended.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST