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

(unknown charset) Re: NAF and NEG [was: LP Semantics (non-monotonicity) i

From: (unknown ch <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:20:24 -0400
To: (unknown charset) Michael Kifer <ki
Cc: (unknown charset) "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, analyti@ics.forth.gr, "'Carlos Viegas Damasio'" <cd@di.fct.unl.pt>, ant
Message-Id: <20050829152031.D94AF4EEC9@homer.w3.org>


> Yes, it is  a weaker kind of negation. My point is that it doesn't use NAF
> and is suitable for cases like the pharmacy example in the charter where
> you might not want to jump to conclusions.

But the use case requires coming to life-and-death conclusions based
on accessing only parts of the KB, which seems to require
monotonicity.  Maybe there can be two kinds of conclusions - strong
and weak/defeasible - drawn by two overlapping languages?  So you
might come a stronge conclusions (these two drugs are safe together)
or you might come a weak conclusion (there is no evidence so far that
there is any harmful interaction between these drugs).  This is like
having NEG and NAF, but any conclusions coming from NAF have to remain
tainted by weakness.  (I'm sure this is all obvious and simple stuff
to some of you; please bear with me and others and we learn how to put
it together.)

      -- sandro
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 15:20:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:23 GMT