- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:47:49 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
> > >I agree that RDF queries and RDF rule premises > > > > Er.....actually, rule consequents/conclusions are more like queries > > than rule premises are. Is that what you meant? > >Um, no. > >Here's a rule: If Ralph is in his office, then Ralph is at MIT. > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > Premise Conclusion > (Antecedent) (Consequent) > >We could make either part into a query: > Is Ralph in his office? There is no way to answer that, given this rule. The rule simply doesn't connect to this query in any way. > Is Ralph at MIT? He is if he is in his office, otherwise you don't know (from the rule) > >But it seems much more natural to think of the premise as a query; it >leads us to a very simple algorithm: > > query: Is Ralph in his office? > on success: we can conclude Ralph is at MIT. > on failure: we can't conclude anything from this. You are here applying the rule to draw a conclusion. But it is invalid to draw a conclusion from a query. Querying is like asking whether something is true, ie whether it *follows from* what has been asserted by the sources you trust. Rules allow you to conclude conclusions, but they don't allow you conclude their antecendents. >How else do you see it? See any logic textbook, Sorry , but this is really very basic stuff. Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2001 12:46:30 UTC