From: Ian Horrocks ([email protected])
Date: 02/28/02
On February 28, Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:
> 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?
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