- From: R.V.Guha <guha@guha.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:03:05 -0700
- To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Pat, What you now saying is that so long as they publish the algorithm/code which they use to derive their conclusions, we will all be ok ... or is there something I am missing? guha patrick hayes wrote: >> 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.
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 16:03:27 UTC