- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:50:09 -0500
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
** SB-1 Scoped negation, Encapsulation
Description:
Jim goes to his physician, Dr. Heal, and the latter prescribes a certain
drug (say, phenolphthalein). The doctor wants to verify that this drug
doesn't have adverse interactions with other drugs and/or other medical
conditions that Jim has. To verify that, a nurse inserts Jim's medical
smartcard, which contains all of his medical history, into a reader
connected to the Web.
A rule-based reasoner, which is running at the doctor's office, contacts
various knowledge sources, including phenolphthalein.AllAbout.example.net,
that provides authoritative information about the prescribed drug.
phenolphthalein.AllAbout.example.net is powered by a rule knowledge
base, which can answer queries about known interactions of phenolphthalein.
If phenolphthalein.AllAbout.example.net doesn't establish that
phenolphthalein is known to have adverse effects given Jim's medical
history, then our reasoner concludes that phenolphthalein is safe and will
not have unintended effects on Jim.
Implications:
- Doctor's reasoner needs to be able to access different remote knowledge
bases.
- There should be no unintended interactions between the rules
comprising the doctor's reasoner and the reasoners at the external
knowledge sources (encapsulation)
- Doctor's reasoner is using default negation with an explicit scope
(phenolphthalein.AllAbout.example.net), i.e., SNAF.
- In a more general case, the doctor's reasoner might have to construct a
query to multiple sites in order to determine if there might be an
adverse effect on Jim. The scope of SNAF then extends to a union of
several knowledge sources.
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2005 20:50:24 UTC