- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:09:59 +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?? > > At any moment when NAF is computed the set of rules and facts > is known to the inference engine. What is your problem? It is indeed known internally to the engine, no doubt. Would like to see that "ALWAYS WELL DEFINED" *outside* the engine to support "proof supporting a conclusion". -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 22:10:45 UTC