RE: Some DAML clarification

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