- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 01:23:19 +0100
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
connolly@w3.org wrote: >jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote: >> >> Pat, >> >> I've been testing the 12 rules in >> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF%20MT-currentdraft.html#rdfsentail >> (we actually have 14 rules because of the 2 rules with 2 statements in >> their conclusions) and I think it all goes very well except for rule 1. >> I currently don't see how to implement that with a back-chaining reasoner. >> Any hint? > > Hmm... I don't see why that one is any more difficult than the > others. If I were going to use pre-existing inference > mechanisms with RDF, I'd use something like > the (holds ...) thingy in section "2.1. Comparison with formal logic". > > In prolog: > > holds(rdf_type, A, rdf_Property) :- holds(A, X, Y). True, but I'm afraid that holds is in a way just shifting the problem... at least that's my experience so far with it and I believe there must be other possibilities... > Of course, transliteration of these rules into prolog will > probably be mostly useless because of infinite loops... > but that's where your Euler magic comes in, yes? (I still > hope to understand how that Euler path stuff works some day...) MT + test cases backed-up with running code :-) Thanks! Jos
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 19:23:46 UTC