- From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:30:09 -0500
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>pat hayes wrote: > >>But Jeff's point is that different reasoners will come up with >>different conclusions from the *same* inputs. Of course there will >>be rival thoeries on the web, though everyone seems to assume that >>this will somehow not be a problem for the SW (I think it is a huge >>problem.) BUt Jeff is making a nastier point: the same content as >>input might produce very different conclusions as output. > >I think that it is inevitable that this too will happen, sooner or >later. At some point, if this thing starts taking off, there will be >extensions that folks make that will be hard to express in a nice >decidable language. Well, it doesnt have to be decideable, only R.E. >You know, someone will want to make temporally qualified statements >or (gasp) even defaults. Or maybe some rules to deal with your >favorite (the frame problem). At which point, all bets are off! All bets aren't off, provided they publish the rules they are using. They can use default reasoning, as long as they (1) say that they are using it and (2) say which 'worlds' they are taking to be closed. In summary: people can use any proof methods they like, as long as they say what they are in enough detail to enable someone else to check their conclusions (ie to check whether they are happy with the methods they used to derive the conclusions.) If those assumptions are part of what gets published as 'input', then we can allow people to use any proof methods they like, even something as patently invalid as citing an external authority. >Of course, that does not mean we have to go there right away ... Indeed. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 14:29:28 UTC