- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:29:46 -0400
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@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?? At any moment when NAF is computed the set of rules and facts is known to the inference engine. What is your problem? Perhaps you are thinking of scope as something static? Doesn't matter.
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 14:30:33 UTC