- From: Jeff Thompson <jeff@thefirst.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:17:28 -0700
- To: public-cwm-talk@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote:
>> I ask because cwm will match existing existentials in the antecedent, so shouldn't
>> it also match them in the consequent, and just leave it as bob owns Fluffy without
>> adding another assertion?
>
> Perhaps... cwm does some redundancy checking, but it's
> not smart enough to realize that
>
> :bob :owns [a :Cat]
>
> is redundant w.r.t.
>
> :bob :owns :fluffy. :fluffy a :Cat.
I must beg to differ, because cwm is smart enough to realize this in the antecedent.
For example, the following matches with {:bob :owns :fluffy} as expected:
bob owns fluffy.
fluffy a Cat.
{?x owns [a Cat]} => {?x a CatOwner}.
> The problem of figuring out which part of the conclusion is
> redundant is pretty hard. It's called the subgraph isomorphism
> problem, I gather.
Am I mistaken? It seems that cwm can find the subgraph isomorphism in the antecedent.
Received on Sunday, 20 April 2008 07:18:02 UTC