- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:36:52 +0100
- 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 UTC