Re: example of a non-monotonic inference needed for interpreting the social meaning of RDF in e-commerce

>pat hayes wrote:
>>>   In particular I intend to providing the feed to Google in 
>>>support of their new Froogle service [3]  and also to publish it 
>>>off my web site as an RDF feed.  Were someone to use the RDF feed 
>>>to determine if I said that I could delive a particular product at 
>>>any given time, they would need to use a non-monotonic inference 
>>Are you SURE it is nonmonotonic? If you are explicit about dates 
>>and what delivery date means, and if you have access to a 
>>clock/calendar as an external source of data, and if you time-stamp 
>>your information, then the overall pattern of reasoning can be 
>>monotonic. The nonmonotonicity will arise if you keep some or all 
>>of this under the hood, so to speak, and make inferences which 
>>depend on it, in fact, but do not openly acknowledge their 
>It is actually very common for nonmonotonicity (of some kind) to 
>appear in simple and
>obvious examples. Take an ordinary SQL-based database system and 
>start building FOL
>extensions to it. Every table in a database is mapped to a predicate 
>in FOL. The intended
>meaning of most (if not all tables) is that the correspoding 
>predicate is closed in the sense
>that if P(a,b) does not appear in the table then it is not true.
>IMHO a suitable way to proceed in such cases is to use a "known" 
>predicate and a simple
>form of knowledge logic. As we know, knowledge logics tend to be cover some
>nonmonotonic logics, but are better and clearer way than a trivial 
>nonmononotonic logic:
>intended meanings are explicit, not hidden.

That is an interesting idea, can you elaborate on what particular 
kind of knowledge logic you mean? (Do you mean McCarthy-style 
circumscription? Certainly that has the advantage of keeping the 
nonmonotonicity kind of localized and easy to find.)

>Since OWL and the whole semantic web area is actually very strongly 
>connected to
>"ordinary" databases (that is where data is normally kept in 
>practice, that is the language
>understood by programmers) I guess that guidelines for combining OWL and FOL
>with databases is really crucial in practice.

You are probably right. You might be interested in the ideas that 
Bill Anderson has been expounding. His company uses a formalism which 
is highly expressive (KIF, in effect) but which has an overall 
assumption of closed-world negation. This gives them a combination of 
expressiveness with effective computability, he claims. Unfortunately 
Bill is in the national guard and has been called into service, so 
you can't ask him directly just now.

>In simple database-like cases the knowledge-predicate-encoded 
>queries tend to be
>computable, since closed predicates tend to be used without function 
>symbols, hence
>derivability is often computable.

This sounds like the description logic path. The current discussions 
about rule systems often assume similar syntactic restrictions as 

>IMHO it will be possible to encode most of the
>practical examples of the kind Seth brought using a knowledge 
>predicate while still keeping
>computability of queries.

That is a very interesting idea. You really should check up on the 
RuleML website and see what is being said there.

>"Plain" nonmonotonic reasoning is bad. As we know, it does not work 
>without additional
>mechanisms for priorities, which are normally ad hoc. Explicit 
>nonmonotonic reasoning
>with a knowledge predicate is survivable.

What I think will happen is that mechanisms to 'protect' nonmonotonic 
conclusions on the SW will evolve with use.


>Tanel Tammet

IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell	   for spam

Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 13:45:33 UTC