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 18:11:57 -0400
Message-ID: <035a01c0f77a$871d77a0$835ec6d1@goat>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>; "Ian Horrocks"
<horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Inference in daml


[...]
> Which is your original inference rule. You can't state that directly
> in DAML, because there is no predicate for "implies"[...]

But can't you make use of logical equivalents? i.e. "p->q" has the same
truth table as "q or not p" -- which can be expressed in daml.

The question is, if you express the rule in that form (by defining a class
of things that are q or not p and say that all things are members of that
class) will a processor that correctly interprets the semantics of the daml
language necessarily interpret the rule as an implication?

--geoff
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 19:46:43 GMT

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