- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:47:28 -0400
- To: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
> > It's trivial with RDF, OWL, N3, and FOL (when you use URIs for names).
>
> I don't think it's trivial for OWL and FOL where you could get
> various kinds of inconsistencies that would have to be resolved,
> which would lead to nonmonotonicity. This problem is well-known
> in the KR community, and the prominent topic of belief revision
> is closely related to this issue of merging rules.
Can you give me a simple example of where you can't merge FOL like
this, to help me understand the problem (and explain it to others)?
It seems obvious that FOL merges (I guess it follows from
And-Introduction [1]), although perhaps there's a subtlety that I'm
missing?
Maybe you can phrase it in terms of scenario #2, where several
organizations are publishing knowledge about drug interactions. Each
of them publishes a view of their KB, using a shared ontology. It
seems to me that the only time adding another source would cast doubt
on conclusions derived from conjoining previous sources would be if a
contradiction arose when the new KB was conjoined. Does the seeming
need for non-monotonicity perhaps parallel the need for dealing with
such possible logical inconsistencies? Truth Maintenance,
Paraconsistency, practical distributed knowledge engineering problems,
etc?
-- sandro
[1] http://www.informatik.htw-dresden.de/~logic/conclusions/rule3.html
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 14:47:38 UTC