- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 04:43:33 -0700
- 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 daml > 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 ? Seth
Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 07:53:27 UTC