Re: rdf inclusion

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