Re: Inference in daml

At 11:04 PM +0100 6/17/01, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>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

Ian-
  You and Jeff Heflin had a discussion at one point about what sorts 
of SHOE [1] rules could and couldn't be expressed in DAML.  Did that 
ever get written down?  Seems like it would be useful in helping 
Geoff (who later wrote)

At 4:42 PM -0400 6/17/01, Geoff Chappell wrote:
>
>Thanks for the response, but... I guess I need to be careful about my
>(over)use of adverbs -- "ultimately"  I'm not trying to express anything
>about dogs or animals necessarily but to translate inference rules of all
>(or some) types into daml terms (if possible).  My example was a bad one
>because there are so many ways without explicit inference to get the point
>across (as you've demonstrated).

My recollection is that DAML can do many things, but there are many 
rules one might wish to express that aren't easily done in DAML

Have a good reference on this?
  thanks
  JH

[1] http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/shoe


-- 
Prof. James Hendler		Program Manager
DARPA/ISO			703-696-2238 (phone)
3701 N. Fairfax Dr.		703-696-2201 (Fax)
Arlington, VA 22203		jhendler@darpa.mil

Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 22:29:07 UTC