- From: Charlie Abela <abcharl@maltanet.net>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:16:42 +0100
- To: "Drew McDermott" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Thanks for your replies. No I don't mind if these mails are forwarded to the rdf-logic mailing list, good for others to see and comment as well. By if possible, to match within an ontology, the premise and its conclusion. Inferencing must play a role here, but still there has to be some declared form of connection between the two. I mean the following; Every rule will have a means of declaring its premises and conclusion, as in the example listed earlier. Now assuming that some form of reasoner is going to be used. And given a premise ( such as one containing a triple) the reasoner must match with a premise/ or premises in a particular rule and infer its conclusion. How will this inference come about? I am not sure how this process should be handled. Should there be some property in a basic rules ontology that connects a premise to a particular conclusion ? Sort of If Premise A Then Conclusion B And in the basic ontology there would be defined in some way that: Premise leadsTo Conclusion So inference engine upon given Premise A will try to find a rule that matches this Premise and the infer its Conclusion Hope I am not making a mess out of this and have explained more the issue Thanks again Charlie -----Original Message----- From: Drew McDermott [mailto:drew.mcdermott@yale.ed u] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:38 PM To: abcharl@maltanet.net Cc: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu Subject: Re: Some DAML clarification A question that has been haunting me these days is how, if possible, to match within an ontology, the premise and its conclusion. Inferencing must play a role here, but still there has to be some declared form of connection between the two. I don't understand this part of your e-mail. Can you elaborate? -- Drew
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 14:19:20 UTC