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.

Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 14:27:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:49:37 UTC