W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cwm-talk@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: kb Scoped Negation As Failure

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 10:53:37 -0500
Message-Id: <85d7799bf6df95e560e935a9776b94a5@w3.org>
Cc: public-cwm-talk@w3.org
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com

On May 28, 2006, at 10:05 AM, jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:

> Today I was experimenting with kb Scoped Negation As Failure
> via http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/log-rules#no

Interesting... if I understand correctly, we have...

   <=> { ?FORMULAS.log:conclusion log:notSupports ?CONCLUSION }.

where log:notSupports is the oppositve of log:supports; it's not 
we've implemented so far, I think.

It makes sense except for this part of the proof:

> [ e:imply {{:Joe :candidateFor :betaBlocker.
> (<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/medic.n3>
> <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/medicF.n3>) e:no {:Joe :notPrescribed
> :betaBlocker}} => {:Joe :isPrescribed :betaBlocker}}]

I see the corresponding rule in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/medic.n3 

{?W :candidateFor ?M. ?M :excludedFor ?D. ?U e:no {(?W ?D) rpo:mu ?V}} 
=> {?W :notPrescribed ?M}.

but I don't see how ?U gets bound to 
<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/medicF.n3>). Does the e:no built-in have
access to the command-line args?

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 28 May 2006 15:53:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:05 UTC