From: Sandro Hawke (sandro@w3.org)
Date: 02/28/02
> Ian Horrocks writes
> On February 27, Pat Hayes writes:
> > So, why bother? I cant see any harm in allowing people to write
> > content in more than one way.
>
> Neither can I, but the point is that it is hard to come up with a
> specification of a rules syntax that doesn't add expressiveness to
> DAML+OIL (and I was discussing the intersection of rules with
> DAML+OIL).
How about this: define semantics of the rules language with DAML+OIL.
It gives you running code (assuming your DAML+OIL inference works) and
you're guaranteed to have no additional expressivity. A nice little
homework assignment for someone. :-)
-- sandro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST