From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 06/05/01
From: Frank van Harmelen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: rule proto-proposal
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:38:34 +0200
> I wrote:
>
> > >Instead, we are designing a language
> > >1. that draws conclusions (and not one that makes transformations),
> > >2. for DAML+OIL (and not for arbitrary RDF).
> > >that is: rules which logical conclusions that are sanctioned by the
> > >semantics of DAML+OIL.
> > why designing a language and cripple the scope when the broader language
> > can do everything?
>
> Stefan replied (in an off-line email):
>
> > Transforming RDF provides the means for manipulating languages.
> > Of course the rules that manipulate have to respect the semantics of the
> > languages, but thats the responsibility of the rules author.
>
> BIG DISAGREEMENT! I would expect DAML+OIL rules always to respect DAML+OIL semantics, ie: if S is some statement which I hold true, and R is a rule which I hold true, than the result of applying R to S is a conclusion which I must unavoidably regard as true.
>
> I wouldn't want DAML+OIL rules to be so flexible that authors could write rules for which the above didn't hold. If DAML+OIL rules would be "just" RDF transformation rules, authors could write such nonsensical (non-semantics respecting) rules.
>
> Stefan added:
>
> > Not doing what I propose means the DAML+OIL rule language would be
> > superfluous very shortly.
>
> I think an RDF transformation rule and a DAML+OIL inference rule are two very different animals. We should be clear on which one we are breeding.
>
> Frank.
> ----
I agree with Frank on this issue.
peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST