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

Re: Merging Rulesets

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:07:44 +0200
To: der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Message-ID: <OFBB8F857F.E4083610-ONC125706D.0075AA94-C125706D.00798698@agfa.com>

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Gerd Wagner wrote:
>> Coming back to your scenario, I think it's realistic to
>> have the following kinds of rules:
>> a) pimozide is contraindicated with macrolides according to a 
>>    1996 FDA bulletin 
>> b) pimozide is safe in conjunction with macrolides for men
>>    over 60 according to a 1999 FDA bulletin
> [An excellent example.]
>> Then b would logically contradict a, and we would need
>> a nonmonotonic conflict resolution procedure such as
>> giving higher priority to more specific and/or more 
>> recent pieces of knowledge.
> Or we might decide that medical decision making was too
> important to base on generic conflict resolution procedures
> and instead require someone to explicitly resolve the
> interaction between the rules. In that case the ability
> to detect the contradiction would be useful, indeed perhaps
> a requirement.

I second such requirement and a few years ago also proposed it
for OWL http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#goal-inconsistency
but the issue was postponed..

For OWL test case work I was using rules with empty conclusion
e.g. {?Y owl:disjointWith ?Z. ?X a ?Y, ?Z} => {}.
and run the inconsistency tests as trying to prove {}.

Another point is writing rule
{premise-triples} => {conclusion-triples}. as
{{conclusion-triples} => {}} => {{premise-triples} => {}}.
to infer integrity constraints such as the ones in example 

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 22:08:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:34 UTC