Re: DAML-ONT: the case for closedness

> -------Message d'origine-------
> De : Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr (Je'ro^me Euzenat)
> Date : 19/10/2000 17:55:34
>
> Would it not be nice to be able to say: what I mean 
by "Everything" 
> is exactly the the interpretation of "A or not A" and 
thus you must 
> not add new definitional axioms for "Everything"?

I wonder if the "claimant" mechanism in SHOE could not help 
here...
Each fact has an associated (set of) claimant.
The claimant for an infered fact is computed from the 
claimants of the facts used for inference.

Ex:
if Jeromes claims that "a car has 4 wheels" and some other 
things about cars,
if the I claim that "my car has 6 wheels"
one could find a contradiction, but she could also detect 
that the contradiction araised because she believed both of 
us ; then she could keep a sound model kby choosing which 
one she believes.

 Pierre-Antoine
______________________________________________________
Boîte aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com