- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:50:28 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...] > > I'm indeed not convinced about having > > existentials in inference rule conclusions > > (except for closed lists denoting sequences) > > > > -- , > > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ > > Could you explain why you don't like existentials in inference rule > conclusions? (This is a real question, I don't understand why it should > matter.) right, quite simply because they require (in any practical setup I've seen so far) a rewrite with Skolem functions of the univars under which scope they fall; of course there could be solutions found (one could e.g. use ( :sf @uv ) :p :o . with lists as term addresses or some such) but we're not yet there (and maybe we shouldn't be there taking the scope of this WG ???) -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 03:51:03 UTC