- From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:55:16 -0400
- To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk> To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net> Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 6:04 PM Subject: Re: Inference in daml > On June 17, Geoff Chappell writes: > > Hi folks, > > > > I've been working with expressing inference rules in daml and need a little help/feedback. > > > > It seems that rules with just the subject unbound can be expressed easily. > > > > For example the rule: > > type(X,animal)<-type(X,dog) > > can be expressed as: > > type(X,animal) or not(type(X,dog)) > > or in daml: > > It seems to me that all you are saying here is that dog is a subClassOf > animal. What is wrong with > > <daml:Class rdf:ID="dog"> > <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#animal"/> > </daml:Class> > > Am I missing something? > > Ian Judging by the responses I've gotten I see I was unclear about my intent and my example was a bad one. Let me try again. Say you have the inference rule: isBiggerThan(X, house)->isBiggerThan(X,breadbox) or equivalently written as: isBiggerThan(X,breadbox) or not(isBiggerThan(X,house)) What is the daml expression of this? can it be as I suggested in my earlier email (making appropriate substitutions of course)? Geoff
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 18:29:46 UTC