Re: Gary's weird test case

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:00:21 -0400
Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

> It was my test case, and you missed the p(?x) in the body, so the rule
> is not inconsistent.

OK. But then we actually derive

Forall ~p(?X) \/ isInt(?X) \/ isStr(?X)

which is not a condition formula.

m

> 
> 
> Jos
> 
> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > This is regarding the rule that kept bugging me:
> > 
> > 1=2 :- AND(p(?X) isNotInt(?X) isNotString(?X)).
> > 
> > It seems this is inconsistent in the presence of other data types, such as 
> > xsd:date. This is because this implies
> > 
> >  Forall ?X OR(isInt(?X) isString(?X))
> > 
> > Since there are things that are disjoint from ints and strs (e.g., dates,
> > time), it follows that the above rule is inconsistent.
> > 
> > To make the above stick, all data types must be mentioned in the body.
> > 
> > 
> > 	--michael  
> > 
>