Re: log:conclusion confusion

Perhaps you can help decipher the description of Filtering in DesignIssues:

Filtering

When a knowledge base (formula) contains a lot of information, one way to filter off a subset is to run a set of rules on the knowledge base, and take only the new data which is generated by the rules.   This is the filter operation.

When you apply rules to a knowledge base, the filter result of rules in H applied to K is the union of all σG for every statement F => G which is in H,  for every σ which s a transformation composed of universal eliminations of variables universally quantified in H such that K includes σF.

The first paragraph seems to say that only the new data is generated. I’m not entirely sure what the second paragraph says. As most of these tests are run with filter; true, it would seem that the results should be consistent with this interpretation.

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

> On Oct 21, 2020, at 9:48 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 21, 2020, at 5:21 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu <mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 21/10/2020 01:11, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> Hi, I’ve been struggling with log:conclusion just running the conclusion-simple.n3 test (https://w3c.github.io/N3/tests/N3Tests/cwm_includes/conclusion-simple.n3 <https://w3c.github.io/N3/tests/N3Tests/cwm_includes/conclusion-simple.n3>)
>>> 
>>> {{<a> <b> <c>}=>{<test> a <SUCCESS> }.
>>>   <a> <b> <c>.
>>> }   a :TestRule.
>>> 
>>> {   ?x a :TestRule; log:conclusion ?y }  => { ?y a :TestResult }.
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that the conclusion would be the inferred triple contained in a formula:
>>> 
>>> {
>>>   <test> a <SUCCESS> .
>>> } a :TestResult .
>>> 
>>> However, CWM seems to include the inferred triple within the context of the premise:
>>> 
>>> {
>>>   <a> <b> <c> .
>>>   <test> a <SUCCESS> .
>>>   {<a> <b> <c> .} => {<test> a <SUCCESS> .} .
>>> } a :TestResult .
>> EYE does the same.
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, the conclusion would just contain the implied triple, 
>> That's the thing: all triples originally present in the formula are implied by the formula…
>> 
> If that’s the case, then either I’ve missed some statement about this, or we need to be more explicit. A number of tests may be inconsistent with this interpretation, but that will take a more detailed analysis and a comparison with the original source.
> 
> Gregg
>>   best
>> 
>>> but that seems to be at odds with convention. This also calls into question may other tests where the result is filtered to include just the conclusions from running rules in the store, rather than the store plus the conclusions. I think this needs a more formal description.
>>> 
>>> The conclusion.n3 test is more complicated, as it concludes the conjunction of the semantics of several other files, so the result would seem to be subject to further reasoning based upon those semantics.
>>> 
>>> Gregg Kellogg
>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>