- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 10:53:37 -0500
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: public-cwm-talk@w3.org
On May 28, 2006, at 10:05 AM, jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:
>
> Today I was experimenting with kb Scoped Negation As Failure
> via http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/log-rules#no
Interesting... if I understand correctly, we have...
{ ?FORMULAS e:no ?CONCLUSION }
<=> { ?FORMULAS.log:conclusion log:notSupports ?CONCLUSION }.
where log:notSupports is the oppositve of log:supports; it's not
something
we've implemented so far, I think.
It makes sense except for this part of the proof:
> [ e:imply {{:Joe :candidateFor :betaBlocker.
> (<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/medic.n3>
> <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/medicF.n3>) e:no {:Joe :notPrescribed
> :betaBlocker}} => {:Joe :isPrescribed :betaBlocker}}]
I see the corresponding rule in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/medic.n3
...
{?W :candidateFor ?M. ?M :excludedFor ?D. ?U e:no {(?W ?D) rpo:mu ?V}}
=> {?W :notPrescribed ?M}.
but I don't see how ?U gets bound to
(<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/medic.n3>
<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/medicF.n3>). Does the e:no built-in have
access to the command-line args?
>
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 28 May 2006 15:53:35 UTC