Re: log:conclusion confusion

> On Oct 21, 2020, at 5:21 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 21/10/2020 01:11, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> Hi, I’ve been struggling with log:conclusion just running the conclusion-simple.n3 test (https://w3c.github.io/N3/tests/N3Tests/cwm_includes/conclusion-simple.n3 <https://w3c.github.io/N3/tests/N3Tests/cwm_includes/conclusion-simple.n3>)
>> 
>> {{<a> <b> <c>}=>{<test> a <SUCCESS> }.
>>   <a> <b> <c>.
>> }   a :TestRule.
>> 
>> {   ?x a :TestRule; log:conclusion ?y }  => { ?y a :TestResult }.
>> 
>> It seems to me that the conclusion would be the inferred triple contained in a formula:
>> 
>> {
>>   <test> a <SUCCESS> .
>> } a :TestResult .
>> 
>> However, CWM seems to include the inferred triple within the context of the premise:
>> 
>> {
>>   <a> <b> <c> .
>>   <test> a <SUCCESS> .
>>   {<a> <b> <c> .} => {<test> a <SUCCESS> .} .
>> } a :TestResult .
> EYE does the same.
>> 
>> In my opinion, the conclusion would just contain the implied triple, 
> That's the thing: all triples originally present in the formula are implied by the formula…
> 
If that’s the case, then either I’ve missed some statement about this, or we need to be more explicit. A number of tests may be inconsistent with this interpretation, but that will take a more detailed analysis and a comparison with the original source.

Gregg
>   best
> 
>> but that seems to be at odds with convention. This also calls into question may other tests where the result is filtered to include just the conclusions from running rules in the store, rather than the store plus the conclusions. I think this needs a more formal description.
>> 
>> The conclusion.n3 test is more complicated, as it concludes the conjunction of the semantics of several other files, so the result would seem to be subject to further reasoning based upon those semantics.
>> 
>> Gregg Kellogg
>> gregg@greggkellogg.net <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>
>> 
>>