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

current version of a W3C technical report: another story about Scoped Negation As Failure/log:notIncludes

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:51:40 -0500
To: "public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org" <public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org>
Cc: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1120758700.10719.50.camel@localhost>

Another story about log:notIncludes, aka Scoped Negation As
Failure[1]... this one is not hypothetical/pedagogical;
it's a production system we use to manage the W3C
tech reports page. http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/

It'd one paper trail[2] style... i.e. there's a
checkpoint of the state every 6 months, and a log
of the publications since then.

The definition of "latest version" of a W3C technical
report is that WORK is the latest version of GENERIC
if WORK is some version of GENERIC and the log
of new publications doesn't include something that
obsoletes it. In N3, it's written:

----
# An updated TR with no more recent update is current...
{
<new-tr.rdf> log:semantics [
   log:includes { :WORK doc:versionOf :GENERIC}
].

  <new-tr.rdf> log:semantics [
    log:notIncludes {
     [ doc:obsoletes :WORK; doc:versionOf :GENERIC
     ]
    }, {
     [ rec:sameWorkAs :GENERIC
     ]
    }
  ].

} log:implies {
  :GENERIC :latestVersion :WORK.
}.
----

I'm not sure what the rec:sameWorkAs bit is about.
I hope we get around to documenting this stuff more
fully...





[1] "The term Scoped Negation As Failure (SNAF) was proposed to indicate
NAF where the scope of the search failure is well defined."
http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/report/#negation-as-failure

[2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/PaperTrail


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 17:51:43 GMT

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