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

Re: NAF v. SNAF - where is this being addressed?

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:36:52 +0100
Message-ID: <42CBB444.4010800@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org

Gerd Wagner wrote:

>>>And again: the important point about a Web-oriented use
>>>of NAF is not really "scope" (in the sense of provenance)
>>>but its relationship to definitive knowledge (as captured
>>>by N3's "definitiveDocument" construct).
>>
>>I think the term "scope" is intended to convey things just like the 
>>definitiveDocument construct.
> 
> 
> But relativizing an inference to some source KB (as its "scope")
> and declaring that source to represent definitive knowledge
> about a property p are two different things.

Perhaps they are different sides of the same coin. :-)

To take a concrete example. One might wish to have a rule that says that 
any user who is not in "this" specific set of authorization statements 
is not authorized and should be rejected. This could be expressed as NAF 
negation "scoped" to statements from the authorization list, or as 
general negation over an authorization predicate which is definitively 
defined by the closed list of assertions or as a set non-membership 
predicate acting over a closed set of authorized users derived from the 
list. I'd agree these are different but they all seem to be within the 
spirit of what was mentioned at the workshop (at least to the extent 
that I was aware of such discussions).

[Not sure this is the right place for this discussion, but then I'm 
confused about the purpose of this list.]

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 10:37:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:21 GMT