W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > December 2003

Re: a simple question

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:47:31 +0100
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA53FCBC0.1F17AE2F-ONC1256DF1.00463930-C1256DF1.004BC33E@agfa.be>


PatH:
[fully agreed]
>                                           The
> industrial uses of Prolog-style rules all are
> designed within controlled environments,
> typically using databases, where such special
> conditions can be assumed. But on the web, we
> can't assume that we are living in such a
> controlled environment. We need to make those
> critical assumptions explicit somehow if we are
> going to make rules that can survive in the real
> world.

For the test cases till now, we have been trying to
find that explicitness by not only showing the
conclusion, but by returning an explanation like
e.g.
{
  (# list of explicitly assumed RDF formulae
   <premise-uri1>.log:semantics
   <premise-uri2>.log:semantics).log:conjunction
  =>
 <conclusion-uri>.log:semantics
}
reason:because
{
  {# a recursive form of
   {given-or-derived-grounded-facts} => {intermediate-conclusion}}
  =>
 {grounded-conclusion}.
 # an iteration for other grounded-conclusions from conclusion-uri
}.

which is meant as an example of an RDF formula :)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 08:49:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:11 GMT