>...I could accept the idea of a common notation for if-then rules,
>but with two very clearly specified options for the semantics:
> 1. A purely classical FOL that is compatible with CL and its
> subsets, such as Z, RDF(S), and OWL.
> 2. A negation-as-failure semantics that is compatible with the
> ISO standard for Prolog.
>If you want that, then say so. But make it very, very clear that
>the two semantics are *not* compatible -- and that no attempt to
>exchange rules between the two versions of semantics should be
>done, except under stringently controlled conditions. (01)
The idea of a single syntax with two different incompatible semantics
scares me. (02)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)