Re: log:conclusion confusion

> On Oct 21, 2020, at 12:07 PM, Doerthe Arndt <doerthe.arndt@ugent.be> wrote:
> 
> Dear Gregg,
> 
> as Pierre-Antoine already mentions, all triples mentioned below are consequence of the formula.
> 
> If you look at the description of log:conclusion (from https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/CwmBuiltins <https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/CwmBuiltins>) it is stated:
> 
> All possible conclusions which can be drawn from a formula. The object of this function, a formula, is the set of conclusions which can be drawn from the subject formula, by successively applying any rules it contains to the data it contains. This is equivalent to cwm's "--think" command line function. It does use built-ins, so it may for example indirectly invoke other documents, validate signatures, etc.
> 
> Your formula in this case is
> 
> {<a> <b> <c>}=>{<test> a <SUCCESS> }.
>  <a> <b> <c>.
> 
> So, you have a conjunction of a triple and a rule. Of course you can, for example, trivially conclude from the above that 
> 
>  <a> <b> <c>.
> From a statement we can always conclude the statement itself.
> 
> All consequences of the formulas above are
> 
>  <a> <b> <c> .
>   <test> a <SUCCESS> .
>   {<a> <b> <c> .} => {<test> a <SUCCESS> .} .
> 
> We have the original triple, the original implication and the triple we get after successfully applying the rule.
> 
Okay, thanks. So for an input of just the premise, the conclusion is just the inferred triple. But, in the context of log:conclusions, the premise, itself, is considered a conclusion, so the result of the inference ?y a :TestResult includes the original premise bound to ?x merged with the conclusions derived from evaluating ?x (<test> a <SUCCESS>) (Pierre-Antoine’s point). Which implies that the conclusion reached by evaluating the premise alone is different than the result of log:conclusions, which makes it largely consistent with our test results, if still somewhat confusing.

Gregg

P.S. Sometimes I feel like a particularly thick student struggling to grasp basic concepts; perhaps I was smarter when I was younger :)
> Kind regards,
> Doerthe
> 
> 
> 
> Am 21.10.20 um 18:48 schrieb Gregg Kellogg:
>>> 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>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> -- 
> Dörthe Arndt
> Researcher Semantic Web
> imec - Ghent University - IDLab | Faculty of Engineering and Architecture | Department of Electronics and Information Systems
> Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 122, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
> t: +32 9 331 49 59 | e: doerthe.arndt@ugent.be <mailto:doerthe.arndt@ugent.be>