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

Re: Inference in daml

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 19:25:12 -0400
Message-ID: <075701c0f9e0$41712ae0$835ec6d1@goat>
To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Jim Hendler" <jhendler@darpa.mil>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: "Jim Hendler" <jhendler@darpa.mil>
Cc: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>; <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Inference in daml

> On June 17, Jim Hendler writes:
> > At 11:04 PM +0100 6/17/01, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> > >On June 17, Geoff Chappell writes:
> > >>  Hi folks,
> > >>
> > >>  I've been working with expressing inference rules in daml and need
> > >>a little help/feedback.
> > >Am I missing something?
> > >
> > >Ian
> >
> > Ian-
> >   You and Jeff Heflin had a discussion at one point about what sorts
> > of SHOE [1] rules could and couldn't be expressed in DAML.  Did that
> > ever get written down?  Seems like it would be useful in helping
> > Geoff (who later wrote)
> We didn't ever write it down. I'm not sure that we came to any
> startling conclusion, but I will speak to Jeff and see if we think we
> can come up with some notes that would help Geoff and others with
> similar requirements.

Thanks for the responses.

I'm serializing inference rules now in rdf in a proprietary schema and
thought it would be better to use daml so that the rules could potentially
be understood by another processor. I'm getting the impression that that's
beyond the intent of current daml language so even if I succeed there might
not be much value in it (since other systems would be unlikely to properly
interpret the rules properly).

It was an interesting exercise for me though. I convinced myself (rightly or
wrongly) that it is possible to express some implications in daml albeit in
a somewhat cumbersome manner. Interestingly it seems that since you are able
to express quantification over the object of a triple, to some degree the
subject, but not the predicate that you can be pretty expressive if all of
your statements are reified (and less so if they're not).


Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 21:03:20 UTC

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