From: Sandro Hawke (sandro@w3.org)
Date: 06/04/03
I probably should have raised this issue on the call, but it was going
on much too long for me.
I'm confused about our process here. We agreed to a roadmap [1] which
says:
> Phase I: we start with defining:
>
> o Datalog Horn logic programs, with URIrefs for predicate etc. logical
> constants, cf. RuleML; and
> coordinate/cross-fertilize this with the specification of
> Datalog Horn FOL in Common Logic.
> (Datalog here means without logical functions of non-zero arity.)
>
> o then Horn without the Datalog restriction
but now you say:
> consensus:
> important topics for future discussion:
> - built-ins (next week)
> - human-consumption string syntaxes (2 weeks from now)
> - explicit equality, names (3 weeks from now)
> - semantics of procedural attachments, how to relate that to classical logic
Didn't we agree to get Phase I done and out the door before we move on
to Phase II issues like built-ins, procedural attachments, and NAF?
The big issues I see in Phase I are:
1. Syntax
a. Friendly Syntax
b. RDF-layered syntax
c. XML (ruleML style) syntax
2. Semantics
a. Is there any observable difference in Phase I between
HornLP and HornFOL? If yes, then which do we pick?
b. Semantics of RDF-layered syntax
Not all of these are trivial, and I'm afraid if we talk much about
built-ins or procedural attachments at this stage, we'll never get
anything out the door. As fun and educational as these meetings are,
it would still be nice to actually produce something. :-)
-- sandro
[1] http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/1358.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 06/04/03 EST