W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2002

Re: TEST: Functional and InverseFunctional tests for approval

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
Message-ID: <OF3FAB52A0.CFCF04F4-ONC1256C2B.00298EE8@agfa.be>


> > 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT