W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cwm-talk@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: testing log:includes and log:notIncludes

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:56:33 +0100
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: public-cwm-talk@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF86EE4078.54F932A6-ONC1256F73.00569062-C1256F73.005792FB@agfa.com>

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 13:37 +0100, jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:
>> while testing log:includes and log:notIncludes
>> cwm found that
>> 
>> {} log:notIncludes {_:x a rdfs:Resource}.
>> 
>> which is OK I think
>> (euler is not OK for that but I am fixing)
>> 
>> both cwm and euler found that
>> 
>> {} log:includes {(1 1) math:sum 2}.
>> 
>> which is not like simple entailment..
>
> Yes... we've wondered now and again whether log:includes should
> know about built-ins or not. After I saw SimonR's design[14Dec]
> it occurred to me that the built-ins could be regarded as
> graphs of their own, so that
>
> {} log:includes {(1 1) math:sum 2 }
>
>  would not be the case but
>
> (math:kb {}).log:conjunction log:includes {(1 1) math:sum 2}
>
>  would be true.

very well, I'll try to do like that :)

that math:kb is an excellent name which I was looking for
since many weeks to use in proof explanation steps a la
  ...
 {-1.9082339805374957 math:lessThan -1.25} e:evidence math:kb} => {
{:meas47 a :LLDAlarm} e:evidence 
<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/2002/10/medicad/op/lldmP.n3#_122>}.
 

> [14Dec]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0469.html
>
>> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 15:57:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:01 GMT