From: Stefan Decker ([email protected])
Date: 05/31/01
Pat,
>Im afraid I disagree. In fact, this remark sounds to me to simply be
>nonsensical. What do you mean by 'treating a tuple in a logical way' if
>the tuple has no known relationship to any kind of logical meaning?
Only taking herbrand models into account an atom triple(s,p,o) (syntax)
corresponds to
tuple <s',p',o'> \in triple' (semantics). Thats enough of logical meaning
necessary
to do something useful with rules on triples. Do you disagree?
If yes, please specify what else you need.
>I meant musical key shifts, as for example when transposing from C to B
>flat. I think you would have trouble doing that in Prolog with the musical
>notation I sketched above.
I would have trouble doing that in any programming language since I don't know
enough about musical transposition.
>I don't think that makes sense, but in any case that is not what I am
>trying to do, or think that DAML should be trying to do.
>
>>However, can be go back to the topic of designing a useful rule language?
>>It seems to me that the difference between:
>> 1) "RDF is a datastructuing language and tripels should not be
>> interpreted as facts" and
>> 2) "RDF tripels are facts"
>>is more than esoteric. It seems obvious that triples can be regarded as
>>atoms in a logical language,
>>at least if I not misunderstood your proposal (see
>>http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/0436.html)
>>that was also your suggestion.
>
>They can be, indeed, and I would like to continue to so regard them.
>However, to my mind that it is incompatible with denying that they have a
>semantics, or trying to write rules that ignore the semantics. I still
>cannot understand quite how you manage to reconcile these positions.
>
>>Can we please focus more on designing a useful rule language?
>
>We got into this discussion because with our different notions of what a
>rule language is, we seem to have different notions of what 'useful'
>means. I emphatically do not see DAML rules as intended to provide
>arbitrary open-ended programming functionality.
Me neither.
We can discuss what features we see essential for a rule language, and probably
will come up with a classification of different languages, each one with a
different
purpose.
My minimal requirements for a horn logic based language:
1) The rule language should to able to XXXX RDF
( choose XXXX from { process, transform, reason with, .... )
2) The rule language should support different RDF vocabularies
(this will get more concrete once we reach agreement that we want to
have more than just a fixed vocabulary ).
3) The rule language should be able to distinguish between different RDF
data sources
(data is distributed and has different properties).
More requirements I would argue for
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Closed World Reasoning (test if a triple is in a given RDF model or not)
(requires a suitable semantics for negation - well founded semantics
is suggested for
various reasons).
5) At least syntactically as expressive and convenient as possible (e.g.
FOL-bodies
in rules)
What are your concrete requirements?
All the best,
Stefan
>Pat
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>IHMC (850)434 8903 home
>40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
>[email protected] http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST