From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>

Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:58:45 +0200

To: dieter.fensel@deri.org

Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss-request@w3.org

Message-ID: <OF6C5736B8.B7C310F4-ONC1257069.0030CB7A-C1257069.00314B6C@agfa.com>

Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:58:45 +0200

To: dieter.fensel@deri.org

Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss-request@w3.org

Message-ID: <OF6C5736B8.B7C310F4-ONC1257069.0030CB7A-C1257069.00314B6C@agfa.com>

very helpful Dieter; thanks [...] > "Assume you have > > p(a,b), p(b,c) > and the following two rules: > p(x,y) -> q(x,y) > p(x,y) & p(y,z) -> q(x,z) > > Then under minimal model semantics q is the deductive closure > of p, i.e., q(a,b), q(b,c), q(a,c) are true and no other q(x,y) us true. > In FOL, this is different since you cannot exclude models in which > q(a,a) is true. That is, you cannot express deductive closure in FOL." [1] what if (somewhere on the web) it is also the case that a owl:sameAs b (it was first order notation with equality) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 08:59:06 UTC

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