- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 00:21:45 -0500
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
On Saturday, November 8, 2003, at 10:41 PM, Drew McDermott wrote: > [Bijan Parsia] > There's two aspects of a precondition, its own logical form, and the > fact that it is embedded in larger conditional (effectively). So, > if a > precondition is that <<My Credit line is greater than 1000>>, the > form > of that assertion *could* just be a regular condition. and arguably > should be. It's the *relationship* between that formula and the > process > that adds the extra semantics, much like putting a formula in the > body > of a rule "changes" its semantics (*if* it is co-true with the other > atoms, then the consequential atoms must be true). > > Actually, when semantics is done right, the context of a formula > doesn't add any "extra semantics." All the meaning of (if P Q) can be > factored into the meaning of P, the meaning of Q, and the meaning of > (if _ _). Obviously, I agree. :) > I sort of thought the Precondition class was essentially a typo -- a > side effect of too many cooks stirring that particular soup. Why are > we defending its existence? Dunno. :) Monika? Hmm. Well, I guess merely having a named class for the class expression Condition & someValuesFrom inv(hasPrecondition, Process) isn't ridiculous. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2003 00:20:36 UTC