- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:26:03 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, analyti@ics.forth.gr, "'Carlos Viegas Damasio'" <cd@di.fct.unl.pt>, antoniou@ics.forth.gr
> > > Yes, it is a weaker kind of negation. My point is that it doesn't use NAF > > and is suitable for cases like the pharmacy example in the charter where > > you might not want to jump to conclusions. > > But the use case requires coming to life-and-death conclusions based > on accessing only parts of the KB, which seems to require > monotonicity. Maybe there can be two kinds of conclusions - strong > and weak/defeasible - drawn by two overlapping languages? So you > might come a stronge conclusions (these two drugs are safe together) > or you might come a weak conclusion (there is no evidence so far that > there is any harmful interaction between these drugs). This is like > having NEG and NAF, but any conclusions coming from NAF have to remain > tainted by weakness. (I'm sure this is all obvious and simple stuff > to some of you; please bear with me and others and we learn how to put > it together.) > Yes, this is precisely what I said. The weak classical negation does the trick here; it is monotonic (it is what is called NEG in RuleML). --michael
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 15:26:29 UTC