Presentations and discussion on Design Goals
(Monday, Feb. 27, 16:15 - 18:00, scribe: IgorMozetic)
Francois Bry: REWERSE
JosdeBruijn: Tarski vs. well-founded semantics ?
- Francois: Both can be combined.
- Hassan: Does semantics need to be composable or Tarski's?
- Francois: Both, composable (more important) and Tarski's.
- Harold: Actions events rules...
- CSMA: No procedural semantics, but priorities are required?
- Francois: I don't know how to do it.
Michael Kifer: RuleML
- Sandro: Interoperability without rule exchange?
- Michael: Send just queries, not rules themselves.
- Igor: Why do you need RIF if rules are not interchanged, but just queries passed (like web services)?
- Michael: Analogy: XML scheme import vs. include.
- CSMA: Predefined set of languages or just a set of features?
- Michael: Predefined set of languages (with given features).
Peter Patel-Schneider: SWRL
- Harold: Semantics cannot be operational?
- Peter: Spec is not operational, implementation is.
JosdeBruijn: Do you consider stable model semantics simple?
- Peter: No! Any non-monotonic semantics must include preference relation, but stable models is questionable as far as simplicity is concerned.
- CSMA: No XML dialect for syntax?
- Peter: Just functional style syntax (abstract).
- CSMA: Human readable syntax is one of the targets?
- Peter: Human readable syntax (parenthesized, functional) is good enough for RIF.
Paul Vincent: Production Rules
- Sandro: Is there any interoperability between PR and non-PR?
- Paul: PRs can simulate logic, constraints belong to both sides.
- CSMA: Rules as specs or for execution?
- Francois: PR in RIF?
- Paul: Source and targets need to be PR, not necessarily RIF.
- Michael: OCL in this framework?
- Paul: OCL is used just as an expression language (data model), not rules themselves.
- CSMA: Scoping of rules in different frameworks?
John Hall: Human-Oriented use case
- Francois: Opens many interesting use cases.
- CSMA: Rules not neccessary for inference? How are they different from others?
- John: Definitional rules can be used for guidance, for decision support by people.
- Frank: In organizations it is not obvious what is the role of rules, what rules should apply.
- CSMA: Predicates, atoms, content are not evaluated by machines, but rules are like any other rules.
Discussions (20 min)
- Frank: PR and FOL: what's the relationship?
- Giorgos: : No connections between requirements and design goals.
- ChrisW: The time is not yet for this. Now we do only information sharing.
- Uli: Rank the requirements.
- Sandro: We come up with requirements, and we straw poll. We are not deciding yet.
- Harold: Tying design goals with use cases would be a good idea.
- Peter: Some design goals are so general, they are independent of UC, they are for RIF (rules) which per se requires some design goals.
- ChrisW: Human-oriented rules are questionable.
- Donald: Should be organization-directed. Need some modal operators.
- Francois: Human readability is important, rich set of logical connectives, operators to enable humans to express variety of situations.
- ChrisW: Human readability is another issue.
- Harold: OMG needs at least partial interoperability.
- Donald: They don't need modal logic, just the operators. However, they have underlying formal logic semantics, but without operational (machine) processing.
IvanHerman: Humans are not perfect reasoners (imperfect rule engine), consequences are questionable.