- From: Jeff Z. Pan <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:48:28 -0000
- To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Hi Graham, > One of the reasons I asked this question was that I have been trying to > combine some datatype-specific deductions (integer arithmetic) expressed in > a scheme [1] inspired by the Pan/Horrocks paper [2], with collections > (lists) of data which are antecedent facts for the desired composite rule > of deduction. I am finding that it is surprisingly awkward to use the > generalized restriction for this purpose, and think that I am probably > missing a trick here. I am not sure I get your point here. Could you give an example to show why it is hard to use the generalised restriction please? Jeff -- Jeff Z. Pan ( http://DL-Web.man.ac.uk/ ) Computer Science Dept., The University of Manchester >My own experiments suggest that I must combine the > restriction with a more conventional (antecedent=>consequent) form of rule. > > The (half-baked) idea I was considering as a way to deal with inference > over a collection was to introduce a primitive along the lines of a 'fold', > as found in functional programming languages (which has been shown to have > some degree of universality for expressing recursive/repetitive functions > [3]), and combine that with non-iterative/non-recursive inference patterns. > > #g > -- > > [1] > http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/RDF-Datatype-inference.html#sec-choice-constraint-classes > > [2] Horrocks, I. and J. Pan, "Web Ontology Reasoning with Datatype Groups", > 2003. > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/PaHo03a.pdf > > [3] J. Functional Programming 1 (1): 1-000, January 1993 > c fl 1993 Cambridge University Press 1 > A tutorial on the universality and expressiveness of fold > Graham Hutton University of Nottingham > (also at http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/fold.pdf) > > [4] http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/ > > > > ------------ > Graham Klyne > For email: > http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact > >
Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 03:35:42 UTC