- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:57:01 +0100
- To: franconi@inf.unibz.it
- Cc: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
Hi, Enrico
[...]
> Take, for example, the case in <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/
> Managing_incomplete_information#disjunctive-info>, which I rephrase
> below.
>
> Given a KB with the only axiom:
>
> kb:customer rdfs:subClassOf unionOf(kb:paysCash kb:paysCC).
>
> and the fact:
>
> kb:customer("Paul").
>
> and the rules:
>
> cons:paying-customer(X) :- kb:customer(X), kb:paysCC(X).
> cons:paying-customer(X) :- kb:customer(X), kb:paysCash(X).
>
> we actually get, as expected, with either SWRL FOL semantics or
> Rosati's style LP semantics:
>
> cons:paying-customer("Paul").
>
> But with the local evaluation of each body I don't get it.
Well, maybe I'm sleeping, but when instead of your 2 rules (in N3)
{?X a kb:customer. ?X a kb:paysCC} => {?X a cons:paying-customer}.
{?X a kb:customer. ?X a kb:paysCash} => {?X a cons:paying-customer}.
I use a single rule
{?X a ?C. ?C owl:unionOf (kb:paysCash kb:paysCC)} => {?X a
cons:paying-customer}.
then given the facts
kb:customer rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:unionOf (kb:paysCash kb:paysCC)].
:Paul a kb:customer.
and given the rules
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rpo-rules.n3
I'm getting proof evidence (*) for
:Paul a cons:paying-customer.
What am I missing??
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
(*)
{{{kb:customer rdfs:subClassOf _:e14_0_} e:evidence
<http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/testP.n3#_496>.
{:Paul a kb:customer} e:evidence
<http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/testP.n3#_498>} => {
{:Paul a _:e14_0_} e:evidence
<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rpo-rules.n3#_24>}.
{_:e14_0_ owl:unionOf (kb:paysCash kb:paysCC)} e:evidence
<http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/testP.n3#_496>} => {
{:Paul a cons:paying-customer} e:evidence
<http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/testP.n3#_503>}.
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 12:57:21 UTC