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: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:09:59 +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: <OFD2B52726.1816C6AE-ONC1257067.0077EE1D-C1257067.0079BBF4@agfa.com>

>> [...]
>>> Allow me to set things straight please. The inference rules
>>> that are often (incorrectly) referred to as NAF ***always***
>>> have scope. I am not familiar with any notion of NAF that
>>> doesn't refer to a scope. Typically the scope is IMPLICIT,
>>> but it is ALWAYS WELL DEFINED. So, NAF is a form of SNAF
>>> where the scope is defined implicitly, but always rigorously.
>>> All Prolog systems that I am aware of are like that.
>> Suppose that in my Prolog program I use lots of consult of
>> resources on the web and also lots of assert and retract all
>> conditioned by the state of the 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??
> At any moment when NAF is computed the set of rules and facts
> is known to the inference engine. What is your problem?

It is indeed known internally to the engine, no doubt.
Would like to see that "ALWAYS WELL DEFINED" *outside*
the engine to support "proof supporting a conclusion".

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 22:10:45 UTC

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