>...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)
K  (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (04)