From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 02/28/02
From: Pat Hayes <[email protected]>
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?
[...]
> >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