Re: N3 semantics new-new proposal

Hi Pierre-Antoine,

This is just a quick feedback about the very last paragraph ;-)

Looking at log:notIncludes I found a floundering issue in our
implementation.
It is fixed in the latest EYE which now expects the object of
log:notIncludes
to be ground at reasoning time.

So only

:gang :contains :bob, :charlie.
:alice :says { :bob :name "bob" }.
{
  :alice :says _:g.
  _:g log:notIncludes { _:s :name "bob" }.
  :gang :contains _:s.
} => {
  :alice :ignores _:s.
}.

entails

:alice :ignores :charlie.

-- https://josd.github.io


On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:39 PM Pierre-Antoine Champin <
pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have a new proposal (now in a more readable format).
>
> https://pad.lamyne.org/xZF7gcnxTLSNKdueLBYv2A
>
> Note that I haven't checked it in depth yet. And that I haven't found a
> satisfying way to model the semantics of log:notIncludes yet :-/
>
>    best
>
>