W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Comments on * DRAFT * Rules Working Group Charter $Revision: 1.60 $

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:25:03 +0200
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss-request@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFDC10FF1B.50D42934-ONC1257067.003D8F2D-C1257067.003EB04D@agfa.com>


> Allow me to set things straight please. The inference rules that are 
> (incorrectly) referred to as NAF ***always*** have scope. I am not 
> with any notion of NAF that doesn't refer to a scope. Typically the 
> is IMPLICIT, but it is ALWAYS WELL DEFINED. So, NAF is a form of SNAF 
> the scope is defined implicitly, but always rigorously.  All Prolog 
> that I am aware of are like that.

Suppose that in my Prolog program I use lots of consult of resources on 
web and also lots of assert and retract all conditioned by the state of 
web, then how can you possibly say that that scope in which I'm deriving
evidence while using negation as failure is ALWAYS WELL DEFINED??

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 11:25:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:33 UTC