- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:02:05 -0500 (EST)
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: jos.deroo@agfa.com Subject: Re: RIF and QL Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:17:05 +0100 > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> [...] > >>> 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?? > > > > Well, perhaps, that you changed the rule, which is stepping outside > > of the permissable actions? > > Really? :-) > I would have thought that > > {?X a kb:customer. > ?X a ?C. > ?C owl:unionOf (kb:paysCash kb:paysCC)} > => > {?X a cons:paying-customer}. > > and > > {?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}. > > are equivalent rulesets, no? > > -- > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ Well obviously not at least in some readings, as they produce different answers. peter
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 20:02:23 UTC