- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:07:44 +0200
- To: der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Gerd Wagner wrote:
>
>> Coming back to your scenario, I think it's realistic to
>> have the following kinds of rules:
>>
>> a) pimozide is contraindicated with macrolides according to a
>> 1996 FDA bulletin
>>
>> b) pimozide is safe in conjunction with macrolides for men
>> over 60 according to a 1999 FDA bulletin
>
> [An excellent example.]
>
>> Then b would logically contradict a, and we would need
>> a nonmonotonic conflict resolution procedure such as
>> giving higher priority to more specific and/or more
>> recent pieces of knowledge.
>
> Or we might decide that medical decision making was too
> important to base on generic conflict resolution procedures
> and instead require someone to explicitly resolve the
> interaction between the rules. In that case the ability
> to detect the contradiction would be useful, indeed perhaps
> a requirement.
I second such requirement and a few years ago also proposed it
for OWL http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#goal-inconsistency
but the issue was postponed..
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html
For OWL test case work I was using rules with empty conclusion
e.g. {?Y owl:disjointWith ?Z. ?X a ?Y, ?Z} => {}.
and run the inconsistency tests as trying to prove {}.
Another point is writing rule
{premise-triples} => {conclusion-triples}. as
{{conclusion-triples} => {}} => {{premise-triples} => {}}.
to infer integrity constraints such as the ones in example
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rule-workshop-discuss/2005Aug/0106.html
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 22:08:01 UTC