- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:51:40 -0500
- To: "public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org" <public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org>
- Cc: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Another story about log:notIncludes, aka Scoped Negation As Failure[1]... this one is not hypothetical/pedagogical; it's a production system we use to manage the W3C tech reports page. http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/ It'd one paper trail[2] style... i.e. there's a checkpoint of the state every 6 months, and a log of the publications since then. The definition of "latest version" of a W3C technical report is that WORK is the latest version of GENERIC if WORK is some version of GENERIC and the log of new publications doesn't include something that obsoletes it. In N3, it's written: ---- # An updated TR with no more recent update is current... { <new-tr.rdf> log:semantics [ log:includes { :WORK doc:versionOf :GENERIC} ]. <new-tr.rdf> log:semantics [ log:notIncludes { [ doc:obsoletes :WORK; doc:versionOf :GENERIC ] }, { [ rec:sameWorkAs :GENERIC ] } ]. } log:implies { :GENERIC :latestVersion :WORK. }. ---- I'm not sure what the rec:sameWorkAs bit is about. I hope we get around to documenting this stuff more fully... [1] "The term Scoped Negation As Failure (SNAF) was proposed to indicate NAF where the scope of the search failure is well defined." http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/report/#negation-as-failure [2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/PaperTrail -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 17:51:43 UTC