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

Re: Inference in daml

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 04:43:33 -0700
Message-ID: <004601c0f7eb$e9057c80$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>

> > 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
> language necessarily interpret the rule as an implication?

An interesting question indeed ... here's another one ... why is there no
predicate for "implies" in DAML ?

Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 07:53:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:35 UTC