W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > September 2002

RE: Is n3 a rules language or a logic language?

From: Wagner, G.R. <G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:27:23 +0200
Message-ID: <AA2E843B3FC96349BF60350202650BE92571E9@tmex1.tm.tue.nl>
To: "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org

> I think the concept of a difference between a  rule and a 
> statement is a trap. Like the difference (argued to bits 
> on the list from time to time!) between entailment and 
> implication.  The fact is that you can take
> one logic in which something occurs as an axiom, expressed
> as an entailment, and convert the same data into another 
> logic in which there is a general axiom for an implication 
> operator, and then the same information originally in an 
> axiom is expressed as a a ground fact using implication.  

Yes, this correspondence is generally provided by the
"deduction theorem" which is either provable in a logic
or it is used as the definition for introducing an
implication connective. Notice that in a constructive
logic approach (e.g., in intuitionistic logic) implication
is defined on the basis of entailment and not as "material
implication" by means of disjunction and negation.

-Gerd
http://tmitwww.tm.tue.nl/staff/gwagner/
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 14:27:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:09 GMT