- From: Yosi Scharf <syosi@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:38:59 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: public-cwm-bugs@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote:
>We all know this sends cwm into the weeds...
>
>@keywords is, of, a.
>@prefix : <#>.
>@prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#>.
>
>fred a Person.
>{ ?WHO a Person } => { ?WHO father [ a Person ] }.
>
>Now suppose that's in <infaux.n3> and consider:
>
>@keywords is, of, a.
>@prefix : <#>.
>@prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#>.
>
>{ <infaux.n3>.log:semantics log:conclusion [
> log:notIncludes { sky color blue } ] }
> => { thisTest a Pass }.
>
>
>That seems like it should pass, at least in a backward-chaining
>reasoner.
>
>If that's the case, then it's wrong to say
>that the domain of log:notIncludes is finite formulas,
>as in...
>
>[[
> Because a formula is a finite size,
> [...]
>]]
> -- section "Implementing defaults and log:notIncludes"
> of part "Reaching out onto the Web"
> of the Semantic Web Tutorial Using N3
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Reach#Implementi
>
>
>
>
I don't understand what you want. Cwm is not a backwards chainer, and
would have no way of doing that correctly. Do you want to commit cwm to
being able to handle that kind of rule? Do you want to say that an
implementation MAY return a value in the case even with an infinite formula?
Yosi
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 15:39:17 UTC