From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 02/28/02
On February 28, Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes: > 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? This is precisely what Sergio and I are working on. Ian > > [...] > > > >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