W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Inference in daml

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:55:16 -0400
Message-ID: <018701c0f76f$d026ad00$835ec6d1@goat>
To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Inference in daml


> On June 17, Geoff Chappell writes:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been working with expressing inference rules in daml and need a
little help/feedback.
> >
> > It seems that rules with just the subject unbound can be expressed
easily.
> >
> > For example the rule:
> >     type(X,animal)<-type(X,dog)
> > can be expressed as:
> >     type(X,animal) or not(type(X,dog))
> > or in daml:
>
> It seems to me that all you are saying here is that dog is a subClassOf
> animal. What is wrong with
>
> <daml:Class rdf:ID="dog">
>   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#animal"/>
> </daml:Class>
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Ian

Judging by the responses I've gotten I see I was unclear about my intent and
my example was a bad one.  Let me try again.

Say you have the inference rule:

    isBiggerThan(X, house)->isBiggerThan(X,breadbox)

or equivalently written as:

    isBiggerThan(X,breadbox) or not(isBiggerThan(X,house))

What is the daml expression of this? can it be as I suggested in my earlier
email (making appropriate substitutions of course)?

Geoff
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 18:29:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:40 GMT