Re: log:conclusion confusion

Dear Gregg,

as Pierre-Antoine already mentions, all triples mentioned below are 
consequence of the formula.

If you look at the description of log:conclusion (from 
https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/CwmBuiltins) it is stated:

    /*All possible conclusions which can be drawn from a formula.* The
    object of this function, a formula, is the set of conclusions which
    can be drawn from the subject formula, by successively applying any
    rules it contains to the data it contains. This is equivalent to
    cwm's "--think" command line function. It does use built-ins, so it
    may for example indirectly invoke other documents, validate
    signatures, etc./

Your formula in this case is

{<a> <b> <c>}=>{<test> a <SUCCESS> }.
  <a> <b> <c>.

So, you have a conjunction of a triple and a rule. Of course you can, 
for example, trivially conclude from the above that

  <a> <b> <c>.

 From a statement we can always conclude the statement itself.

All consequences of the formulas above are

  <a> <b> <c> .
   <test> a <SUCCESS> .
   {<a> <b> <c> .} => {<test> a <SUCCESS> .} .

We have the original triple, the original implication and the triple we 
get after successfully applying the rule.

Kind regards,
Doerthe


Am 21.10.20 um 18:48 schrieb Gregg Kellogg:
>> On Oct 21, 2020, at 5:21 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin 
>> <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu 
>> <mailto: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)
>>>
>>> {{<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
>>>
>>>
>
-- 
Dörthe Arndt
Researcher Semantic Web
imec - Ghent University - IDLab | Faculty of Engineering and Architecture | Department of Electronics and Information Systems
Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 122, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
t: +32 9 331 49 59 | e: doerthe.arndt@ugent.be