- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@frontiernet.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:13:13 -0400
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, edbark@nist.gov, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Michael Kifer wrote: >> Michael Kifer wrote: >> >>> I said that normative rules imply that we must use some sort of a closed >>> world assumption. Under the open-world assumption there is no useful way to >>> distinguish between normative rules and deductive rules, but under the CWA >>> there is. >>> >>> >> I am not sure I can agree with this. I can very well imaginbe normative >> rules not governed by a Closed World Assumption. >> > > Francois, > > The above must be taken in the context of my earlier message > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0161.html > where I *proved* that the rule set for which those normative rules act as > constraints must have some sort of closed world assumption (more precisely, > cannot use the normal first-order semantics). > I must say that "proved" is a bit strong here. You have used in your argument a particular definition of constraint that infallibly leads to your conclusion. For those indoctrinated in the logical school (to paraphrase your term), a constraint can just be an axiom and satisfiability the test. This is not to say one is right or wrong, just that your argument constitutes no proof. > I did not say that normative rules must be "governed" by CWA, because I > don't know what this might mean. > > If you think that my very short proof has a bug then please point this out. > > > > --michael > > > > > -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@frontiernet.net Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 01:13:19 UTC