From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:29:40 +0100

Message-ID: <01b101c0f785$647e8c60$66da93c3@z5n9x1>

To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>

Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:29:40 +0100

Message-ID: <01b101c0f785$647e8c60$66da93c3@z5n9x1>

To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>

Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

> Say you have the inference rule: > > isBiggerThan(X, house)->isBiggerThan(X,breadbox) > > [...] What is the daml expression of this? "isBiggerThan" is a Transitive Property for a start, so:- :isBiggerThan rdf:type daml:TransitiveProperty . Where:- y(x, p) :- y(x, z), y(z, p), rdf:type(y, daml:TransitiveProperty). And so I think that the "DAML expression" that you are looking for is:- rdf:type(isBiggerThan, daml:TransitiveProperty), isBiggerThan(house, breadbox). Because from those two triples (and using the definition of a daml:TransitiveProperty, above, which should be inherent to DAML processors) you can imply that:- isBiggerThan(x, house)->isBiggerThan(x, breadbox) Which is your original inference rule. You can't state that directly in DAML, because there is no predicate for "implies", but you can make statements which people can then derive axioms from using the defintitions of the DAML terms. Using log:implies you could state that:- { :x :isBiggerThan :house } log:implies { :x :isBiggerThan :breadbox } a log:Truth; log:forAll :x . Which is RDF (just about...), but not involving DAML. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 19:28:23 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:21 UTC
*