- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:25:03 +0200
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss-request@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
[...] > Allow me to set things straight please. The inference rules that are often > (incorrectly) referred to as NAF ***always*** have scope. I am not familiar > with any notion of NAF that doesn't refer to a scope. Typically the scope > is IMPLICIT, but it is ALWAYS WELL DEFINED. So, NAF is a form of SNAF where > the scope is defined implicitly, but always rigorously. All Prolog systems > that I am aware of are like that. Suppose that in my Prolog program I use lots of consult of resources on the web and also lots of assert and retract all conditioned by the state of the web, then how can you possibly say that that scope in which I'm deriving evidence while using negation as failure is ALWAYS WELL DEFINED?? -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 11:25:31 UTC