**** DEADLINE - Paper Submission March 4th **** Call for Papers: The 9th International Web Rule Symposium (RuleML 2015) ======================================================================== August 2-5, 2015, Freie Universitaet Berlin, Berlin, Germany http://2015.ruleml.org ++++++++++++ News ++++++++++++++++ - Keynotes by Michael Genesereth on FOL Herbrand Semantics and Thom Fruewirth on Constraint Handling Rules - Tutorial Day http://2015.ruleml.org/tutorials.html - Industry Track http://2015.ruleml.org/industrytrack.html - 9th International Rule Challenge http://2015.ruleml.org/challenge.html - with challenge track "Rule-based Recommender Systems for the Web of Data" http://2015.ruleml.org/recsysrules-2015.html - and RuleML Rulebase Competition Award and Demo Award http://2015.ruleml.org/challenge.html - 5th Doctoral Consortium http://2015.ruleml.org/DoctoralConsortium.html - Student Travel support http://2015.ruleml.org/student-travel-support.html - Co-located with: CADE 2015, RR 2015, Reasoning Web 2015, FOMIS 2015 and further CADE workshops - Sponsors and Partners: ECCAI, AAAI, W3C, OMG, OASIS LegalXML, Association for Logic Programming, IEEE Technical Committee on Semantic Computing, IFCoLog, Signavio, Model Systems, Coherent Knowledge, Binarypark, ShareLatex, Corporate Semantic Web, Springer LNCS, Athan Services The annual International Web Rule Symposium (RuleML) is the leading international event in the field of rules and their applications. RuleML 2015, the ninth event in this series, will be held in Berlin, Germany, August 3-5 in conjunction with the Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), the Workshop on Formal Ontologies meet Industry (FOMI), the Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR) and the Reasoning Web Summer School (RW). RuleML 2015 will host multiple tracks on Complex Event Processing, Existential Rules and Datalog+/-, Industry, Legal Rules and Reasoning and Rule Learning, as well as hosting the 9th International Rule Challenge, the 5th RuleML Doctoral Consortium, the RuleML tutorial day, and the 7th Workshop on Formal Ontologies meets Industry. Objectives ---------- RuleML 2015 will bring together practitioners, interested in the theory and applications of rules in academic research, industry, engineering, business and other diverse application areas. It will provide a forum for stimulating co-operation and cross-fertilization between the many different communities focused on the research and development of rule-based systems. The symposium's areas of research and development have helped drive rapid progress in technologies for practical rule and event processing in distributed enterprise, intranets, and open distributed environments. Industry practitioners, rule-system providers, users of rules, technical experts and developers, and researchers who are exploring foundational issues, developing systems and applications, or using rule- based systems are invited to share ideas, results, and experiences. Topics ------ The conference will have 5 special tracks, as well as general sessions. The tracks are: * Complex Event Processing * Existential Rules and Datalog+/- * Legal Rules and Reasoning * Rule Learning * Industry We invite high-quality submissions related (but not limited) to the special tracks and within the general theme of the conference. Track Topics ------------ Complex Event Processing (Main theme: Uncertainty Handling in Complex Event Processing) - Scalable CEP under uncertainty - Visual analytics for CEP systems - Distributed CEP under uncertainty - Real-world applications of CEP - Event forecasting under uncertainty - Privacy issues in CEP - Multi-scale temporal aggregation of events - Benchmarks and testbeds for CEP - Machine learning for event processing and forecasting Existential Rules and Datalog+/ - Decidability paradigms for existential rules - Consistent query answering - Reasoning and querying - Query Rewriting - Nonmonotonic reasoning - Query Optimization - Probabilistic reasoning - Ontology Languages - Data and knowledge integration and exchange - Ontology-based Data Access System - Conceptual modeling - Descriptions and applications - Semi-structured data, graph databases and (Semantic) Web data Legal Rules and Reasoning - Learning from legal texts - Modeling normative rules - Reguratory compliance by rules - Modeling legislation - XML, standards for legal documents - Legal ontology - Semantic Web in Legal Domain - Legal Open Data and Rules - Reasoning about normative rules - Normative rules extraction by natural language processing Rule Learning - Inductive rule learning - Classification rules - Association rules - Learning rules for the semantic web - Preference rules - Rule-based recommender systems - Relational learning - Learning business rules - Descriptive rule learning - Predictive rule learning Industry Track The RuleML 2015 Industry Track targets businesses and the private sector interested in sharing, exploring, and learning about the use of rules and rule technologies for solving real life business problems. For further information about the Industry Track topics and submission see: http://2015.ruleml.org/industrytrack.html Generel Topics (not limited to) - Rules and automated reasoning - Rule-based policies, reputation, and trust - Reaction rules - Rules and the Web - Rule discovery from data - Fuzzy rules and uncertainty - Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning - Non-classical logics and the Web (e.g modal, especially deontic and epistemic, logics) - Hybrid methods for combining rules and statistical machine learning techniques (e.g., conditional random fields, Probabilistic Soft Logic) - Rule transformation and extraction - Vocabularies, ontologies, and business rules - Rule markup languages and rule interchange formats - Rule-based distributed/multi-agent systems - Rules, agents, and norms - Rule-based communication, dialogue, and argumentation models - Rule-based data integration - Vocabularies and ontologies for pragmatic primitives (e.g. speech acts and deontic primitives) - Pragmatic web reasoning and distributed rule inference / rule execution - Rules in online market research and online marketing - Applications of rule technologies in health care and life sciences - Rules and Human Language Technology - Industrial applications of rules - Rules and business process compliance checking - Standards activities related to rules - Rules and social media - General rule topics Student Travel Support ---------------------- Student Travel Support of EUR 500 will be provided for the two best student (first author) submissions. For a paper to be considered, its first author must be a student. Proof of studentship will be required at time of registration. More detailed information on how to apply will be sent to authors of accepted papers through Easychair. Important Dates --------------- Abstract Submission February 25, 2015 Paper Submission March 4, 2015 Notification May 4, 2015 Camera Ready May 18, 2015 Symposium Dates August 3-5, 2015 Submission guidelines --------------------- (except for the Industry Track - the guidelines for the Industry Track can be found at http://2015.ruleml.org/industrytrack.html) Papers must be original contributions written in English and must be submitted at EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ruleml2015) as: For all Tracks and general topics: # Full Papers (15 pages in the proceedings) # Short Papers (8 pages in the proceedings) For submission to a particular track please select that particular track/category. To submit under the general topics simply select the "General RuleML track" category. All papers must have at least three keywords identifying the main topics of the paper. Please upload all submissions in LNCS format (http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs/lncs+authors?SGWID=0-40209-0-0-0). To ensure high quality, submitted papers will be carefully peer-reviewed by 3 PC members based on originality, significance, technical soundness, and clarity of exposition. Selected papers, including those accepted for the special tracks will be published in book form in the Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) series (http://www.springer.com/computer/lncs?SGWID=0-164-0-0-0). Short papers may contain 1 extra page maximum for which there is a charge of US$200, while for long papers you are allowed 2 extra pages maximum for EACH of which there is a charge of US$200. More information ---------------- Website: http://2015.ruleml.org Twitter hashtag: #ruleml2015 (https://twitter.com/search/?q=%23ruleml2015) Blog: http://blog.ruleml.org Call for papers: http://2015.ruleml.org/calls.html Sponsoring: http://2015.ruleml.org/sponsorship.html

Hello, I am currently trying to write down the basic formal semantics of N3 and I had some problems with implicit quantification. Maybe you could help me here? I am not 100% sure how the scope of the universal quantifiers is. If I have for example the formula: {{?x :p :o}=> {?x :pp :o}}=> {{?x :g :l}=>{?x :k :o}}. Are the four ?x the same? Does it mean 1. ∀x: ((p(x,o) → pp(x,o))→(g(x,l)→k(x,o))) or 2. ((∀x_1 p(x_1, o) → pp(x_1, o))→(∀x_2 g(x_2, l)→k(x_2, o))) I checked in the N3 team submission (http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/N3/#Quantifica) which states: "Apart from the set of statements, a formula also has a set of URIs of symbols which are universally quantified, and a set of URIs of symbols which are existentially quanitified. Variables are then in general symbols which have been quantified. There is a also a shorthand syntax ?x which is the same as :x except that it implies that x is universally quantified not in the formula but in its parent formula" This and the behaviour of the cwm reasoner (http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html) in that case, suggest that it is 2. But in the EYE reasoner (http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/) the first option seems to be implemented (and this first interpretation would also be easier to formalise). What about nested formulas? Is the quantification on top level inherited or is there a new quantifier for every level? For EYE it is inherited, but I tested two examples in cwm: 1. {?y :p :o}=> {:s :p {?y :pp :o}}. 2. {:s :p :o}=> {?x :p {?x :pp :o}}. According to its parsing, the ?y in the first formula are the same, the two ?x of the second formula aren't. cwm's interpretation: 1. ∀y: (p(y,o) → p(s,pp(y,o)) 2. p(s,o) → (∀x_1: p(x_1,(∀x_2: pp(x_2,o)) So, how is it supposed to be? Maybe I am misunderstanding it, but shouldn't the parsing for the two formulas behave similarly? Why is there a difference? Thank you in advance for your help! Kind regards, Dörthe Arndt -- Dörthe Arndt Researcher Semantic Web Ghent University - iMinds - Multimedia Lab Faculty of Engineering and Architecture Department of Electronics and Information Systems Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium t: +32 9 331 49 59 e: dorthe.arndt@ugent.be URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be

On 2015-01 -16, at 11:05, Dörthe Arndt <dorthe.arndt@ugent.be> wrote: > Hello, > > I am currently trying to write down the basic formal semantics of N3 and I had some problems with implicit quantification. Maybe you could help me here? > > I am not 100% sure how the scope of the universal quantifiers is. If I have for example the formula: They are universally quantified in the graph one outside the one they are mentioned in. This is to get simple rules to work like sparql. > > {{?x :p :o}=> {?x :pp :o}}=> {{?x :g :l}=>{?x :k :o}}. > > Are the four ?x the same? No, the first two are the same and the second two are. If in doubt use @forAll > Does it mean > > 1. ∀x: ((p(x,o) → pp(x,o))→(g(x,l)→k(x,o))) > > or > > 2. ((∀x_1 p(x_1, o) → pp(x_1, o))→(∀x_2 g(x_2, l)→k(x_2, o))) The latter > > > I checked in the N3 team submission (http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/N3/#Quantifica) which states: > > "Apart from the set of statements, a formula also has a set of URIs of symbols which are universally quantified, and a set of URIs of symbols which are existentially quanitified. Variables are then in general symbols which have been quantified. There is a also a shorthand syntax ?x which is the same as :x except that it implies that x is universally quantified not in the formula but in its parent formula" The important bit here is 'not in the formula but in its parent formula'. > > This and the behaviour of the cwm reasoner (http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html) in that case, suggest that it is 2. But in the EYE reasoner (http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/) the first option seems to be implemented (and this first interpretation would also be easier to formalise). > I wasn't aware that EYE was different. The reason for having the rule that the quantification is in the parent formula is that 1) that makes it work as you would expect with simple rules { ?x :p ?y } => { ?y :p ?x }. 2) If you can and paste a rule into something else, it doesn't change it meaning @forAll :p. { :p a :SymmetricProperty } => {{ ?x :p ?y } => { ?y :p ?x }}. works. But note you cannot use ?p -- you have to explicitly quantify p. I hope this helps. > What about nested formulas? Is the quantification on top level inherited or is there a new quantifier for every level? For EYE it is inherited, but I tested two examples in cwm: > > 1. {?y :p :o}=> {:s :p {?y :pp :o}}. > > 2. {:s :p :o}=> {?x :p {?x :pp :o}}. > > According to its parsing, the ?y in the first formula are the same, the two ?x of the second formula aren't. > cwm's interpretation: > > 1. ∀y: (p(y,o) → p(s,pp(y,o)) > > 2. p(s,o) → (∀x_1: p(x_1,(∀x_2: pp(x_2,o)) > > So, how is it supposed to be? Maybe I am misunderstanding it, but shouldn't the parsing for the two formulas behave similarly? > Why is there a difference? > > Thank you in advance for your help! > > Kind regards, > Dörthe Arndt > > -- > Dörthe Arndt > Researcher Semantic Web > Ghent University - iMinds - Multimedia Lab > Faculty of Engineering and Architecture > Department of Electronics and Information Systems > Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium > > t: +32 9 331 49 59 > e: dorthe.arndt@ugent.be > URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be > > > >

I'm not busy with these things anymore, butI would agree with Tim.Greetings, Guido Naudts Naudts - Van NotenSecretarisdreef 52288 Bouwel Belgium On Monday, January 19, 2015 4:10 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: On 2015-01 -16, at 11:05, Dörthe Arndt <dorthe.arndt@ugent.be> wrote: > Hello, > > I am currently trying to write down the basic formal semantics of N3 and I had some problems with implicit quantification. Maybe you could help me here? > > I am not 100% sure how the scope of the universal quantifiers is. If I have for example the formula: They are universally quantified in the graph one outside the one they are mentioned in. This is to get simple rules to work like sparql. > > {{?x :p :o}=> {?x :pp :o}}=> {{?x :g :l}=>{?x :k :o}}. > > Are the four ?x the same? No, the first two are the same and the second two are. If in doubt use @forAll > Does it mean > > 1. ∀x: ((p(x,o) → pp(x,o))→(g(x,l)→k(x,o))) > > or > > 2. ((∀x_1 p(x_1, o) → pp(x_1, o))→(∀x_2 g(x_2, l)→k(x_2, o))) The latter > > > I checked in the N3 team submission (http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/N3/#Quantifica) which states: > > "Apart from the set of statements, a formula also has a set of URIs of symbols which are universally quantified, and a set of URIs of symbols which are existentially quanitified. Variables are then in general symbols which have been quantified. There is a also a shorthand syntax ?x which is the same as :x except that it implies that x is universally quantified not in the formula but in its parent formula" The important bit here is 'not in the formula but in its parent formula'. > > This and the behaviour of the cwm reasoner (http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html) in that case, suggest that it is 2. But in the EYE reasoner (http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/) the first option seems to be implemented (and this first interpretation would also be easier to formalise). > I wasn't aware that EYE was different. The reason for having the rule that the quantification is in the parent formula is that 1) that makes it work as you would expect with simple rules { ?x :p ?y } => { ?y :p ?x }. 2) If you can and paste a rule into something else, it doesn't change it meaning @forAll :p. { :p a :SymmetricProperty } => {{ ?x :p ?y } => { ?y :p ?x }}. works. But note you cannot use ?p -- you have to explicitly quantify p. I hope this helps. > What about nested formulas? Is the quantification on top level inherited or is there a new quantifier for every level? For EYE it is inherited, but I tested two examples in cwm: > > 1. {?y :p :o}=> {:s :p {?y :pp :o}}. > > 2. {:s :p :o}=> {?x :p {?x :pp :o}}. > > According to its parsing, the ?y in the first formula are the same, the two ?x of the second formula aren't. > cwm's interpretation: > > 1. ∀y: (p(y,o) → p(s,pp(y,o)) > > 2. p(s,o) → (∀x_1: p(x_1,(∀x_2: pp(x_2,o)) > > So, how is it supposed to be? Maybe I am misunderstanding it, but shouldn't the parsing for the two formulas behave similarly? > Why is there a difference? > > Thank you in advance for your help! > > Kind regards, > Dörthe Arndt > > -- > Dörthe Arndt > Researcher Semantic Web > Ghent University - iMinds - Multimedia Lab > Faculty of Engineering and Architecture > Department of Electronics and Information Systems > Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium > > t: +32 9 331 49 59 > e: dorthe.arndt@ugent.be > URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be > > > >

Hi Tim, just a quick clarification: > I wasn't aware that EYE was different. At the occasion of the first team submission d.d. 2008-01-14 http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-n3-20080114/ I made the following comments 5 days later http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cwm-talk/2008JanMar/0000.html esp. [[ The main differences that we have in our implementation are 1/ the scope of quickvars like ?A is the statement level ... ]] Statements are clauses i.e. facts (triples) and rules. I never wanted to change that in our implementation, so we have an issue: $ cat black_and_white.n3 @prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#>. @prefix : <http://example.org/test#>. {{?s :p :o} => {?s :pp :o}} => {:i a :Black}. {<>!log:semantics log:notIncludes {{?s :p :o} => {?s :pp :o}}} => {:i a :White}. {:p :p :o} => {:p :pp :o}. $ eye --nope black_and_white.n3 --pass 2> /dev/null #Processed by Id: euler.yap 7698 2015-01-13 19:40:14Z josd #eye --nope black_and_white.n3 --pass PREFIX log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#> PREFIX : <http://example.org/test#> :i a :Black. $ cwm black_and_white.n3 --think --data 2> /dev/null #Processed by Id: cwm.py,v 1.198 2012-01-30 09:30:20 timbl Exp # using base file:///home/jdroo/temp/quickvars/black_and_white.n3 @prefix : <http://example.org/test#> . :i a :White . This inconsistency was resolved by Dörthe by simply adding a dummy rule $ cat black_and_white_try.n3 @prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#>. @prefix : <http://example.org/test#>. # "dummy rule" found by Dörthe {?s ?s ?s} => {?s ?s ?s}. {{?s :p :o} => {?s :pp :o}} => {:i a :Black}. {<>!log:semantics log:notIncludes {{?s :p :o} => {?s :pp :o}}} => {:i a :White}. {:p :p :o} => {:p :pp :o}. and then cwm gives $ cwm black_and_white_try.n3 --think --data 2> /dev/null #Processed by Id: cwm.py,v 1.198 2012-01-30 09:30:20 timbl Exp # using base file:///home/jdroo/temp/quickvars/black_and_white_try.n3 @prefix : <http://example.org/test#> . :i a :Black . Kind regards, Jos Jos De Roo | Agfa HealthCare Senior Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo http://twitter.com/josderoo Agfa HealthCare NV, Moutstraat 100, B-9000 Gent, Belgium http://www.agfa.com/healthcare

Hello, first of all: Thank you for your answers! I still have two remaks/questions: >> >> I am currently trying to write down the basic formal semantics of N3 and I had some problems with implicit quantification. Maybe you could help me here? >> >> I am not 100% sure how the scope of the universal quantifiers is. If I have for example the formula: > They are universally quantified in the graph one outside the one they are mentioned in. This is to > get simple rules to work like sparql. I am a little bit confused here, I thought that sparql handles that case different. If I have the query: select distinct ?p ?t where { {{{?p a <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Place>.}}} {{{?t <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/primaryTopic> ?p. }}} } Doesn't it mean the same as: select distinct ?p ?t where { {?p a <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Place>.} {?t <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/primaryTopic> ?p. } } So here the quantification seems to be on top level and not just on the "mother-graph". > >> {{?x :p :o}=> {?x :pp :o}}=> {{?x :g :l}=>{?x :k :o}}. >> >> Are the four ?x the same? > No, the first two are the same and the second two are. > > If in doubt use @forAll > > >> Does it mean >> >> 1. ∀x: ((p(x,o) → pp(x,o))→(g(x,l)→k(x,o))) >> >> or >> >> 2. ((∀x_1 p(x_1, o) → pp(x_1, o))→(∀x_2 g(x_2, l)→k(x_2, o))) > The latter > >> >> I checked in the N3 team submission (http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/N3/#Quantifica) which states: >> >> "Apart from the set of statements, a formula also has a set of URIs of symbols which are universally quantified, and a set of URIs of symbols which are existentially quanitified. Variables are then in general symbols which have been quantified. There is a also a shorthand syntax ?x which is the same as :x except that it implies that x is universally quantified not in the formula but in its parent formula" > > The important bit here is 'not in the formula but in its parent formula'. > > > >> This and the behaviour of the cwm reasoner (http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html) in that case, suggest that it is 2. But in the EYE reasoner (http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/) the first option seems to be implemented (and this first interpretation would also be easier to formalise). >> > I wasn't aware that EYE was different. > > The reason for having the rule that the quantification is in the parent formula is that > > 1) that makes it work as you would expect with simple rules > > > { ?x :p ?y } => { ?y :p ?x }. > > > 2) If you can and paste a rule into something else, it doesn't change it meaning > > @forAll :p. > > { :p a :SymmetricProperty } => {{ ?x :p ?y } => { ?y :p ?x }}. > > works. But note you cannot use ?p -- you have to explicitly quantify p. > > I hope this helps. > > >> What about nested formulas? Is the quantification on top level inherited or is there a new quantifier for every level? For EYE it is inherited, but I tested two examples in cwm: >> >> 1. {?y :p :o}=> {:s :p {?y :pp :o}}. >> >> 2. {:s :p :o}=> {?x :p {?x :pp :o}}. >> >> According to its parsing, the ?y in the first formula are the same, the two ?x of the second formula aren't. > > >> cwm's interpretation: >> >> 1. ∀y: (p(y,o) → p(s,pp(y,o)) >> >> 2. p(s,o) → (∀x_1: p(x_1,(∀x_2: pp(x_2,o)) >> >> So, how is it supposed to be? Maybe I am misunderstanding it, but shouldn't the parsing for the two formulas behave similarly? >> Why is there a difference? >> >> Thank you in advance for your help! >> >> Kind regards, >> Dörthe Arndt >> >> -- >> Dörthe Arndt >> Researcher Semantic Web >> Ghent University - iMinds - Multimedia Lab >> Faculty of Engineering and Architecture >> Department of Electronics and Information Systems >> Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium >> >> t: +32 9 331 49 59 >> e: dorthe.arndt@ugent.be >> URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be >> >> >> >> -- Dörthe Arndt Researcher Semantic Web Ghent University - iMinds - Multimedia Lab Faculty of Engineering and Architecture Department of Electronics and Information Systems Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium t: +32 9 331 49 59 e: dorthe.arndt@ugent.be URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be

Hello, Sorry for sending an unfinished mail! Here the entire mail: first of all: Thank you for your answers! I still have two remarks/questions: >> I am currently trying to write down the basic formal semantics of N3 and I had some problems with implicit quantification. Maybe you could help me here? >> >> I am not 100% sure how the scope of the universal quantifiers is. If I have for example the formula: > They are universally quantified in the graph one outside the one they are mentioned in. This is to > get simple rules to work like sparql. 1. I am a little bit confused here, I thought that sparql handles that case different. If I have the query: select distinct ?p ?t where { {{{?p a<http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Place>.}}} {{{?t<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/primaryTopic> ?p. }}} } Doesn't it mean the same as: select distinct ?p ?t where { {?p a<http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Place>.} {?t<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/primaryTopic> ?p. } } So here the scope of the quantification seems to be on top level and not just on the "mother-graph". This is different than in the n3-example I posted earlier. But maybe I just misunderstood you? > >> {{?x :p :o}=> {?x :pp :o}}=> {{?x :g :l}=>{?x :k :o}}. >> >> Are the four ?x the same? > No, the first two are the same and the second two are. > > If in doubt use @forAll > 2. I started with with a formalisation which uses @forAll but I got problems with formulas such as: { @forAll :x. :x :p :o.} => {:x :pp :o}. Does the scope of the @forAll end with the bracket "}"? Thank you in advance for your explanations and opinions! Greetings, Dörthe Arndt -- Dörthe Arndt Researcher Semantic Web Ghent University - iMinds - Multimedia Lab Faculty of Engineering and Architecture Department of Electronics and Information Systems Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium t: +32 9 331 49 59 e:dorthe.arndt@ugent.be URL:http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be