- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:50:01 -0500
- To: David Allsopp <d.allsopp@signal.QinetiQ.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
>Pat Hayes wrote: > >> >> > which may help to explain the (my) confusion. This notion of 'rule' >> >> > doesn't make sense to me. Why would matching a *query* produce the >> >> > insertion of *statements*? >> > >> >Be they in the original dataset or in temporary database from which >> >the query response is culled, the consequence of a rule must be noted >> >in order to be useful. I called that operation "inserting", perhaps >> >wrongly (or incoherently). >> >> NO, that's OK. The part I'm having trouble with here is why the >> initial trigger was called a *query* instead of an *assertion*. If I >> assert P and I know that (P implies Q) then its obviously correct to >> infer Q and assert it. But even if I know that (P implies Q), I'm not >> entitled to infer Q from P's being *queried*. If I know that men are >> mammals, and someone *asks* me if Joe is a man, I shouldn't conclude >> that Joe is a mammal. Maybe the answer to the question was 'No, Joe >> is a parrot' > >The reason calling the trigger a query made sense to me is that I >visualise the situation as follows: >I have a rule engine and set of rules. There is a separate knowledge >base of assertions somewhere, on disk or on the network. 'I' (the rule >engine) know that (P implies Q). But has P been asserted, and can I >therefore infer Q? That's in the knowledge base, so I have to *query* >the knowledge base in order to tell whether P has been *asserted*. OK,I see what you mean. But you have missed out a step. You (the rule engine) query the KB: you say P? to the KB. Presumably, the KB gives you an answer, which is an assertion (not a query): P (or maybe 'yes', which has the same content when given as an answer to your query;) and then you take *that answer* and run the rule on it: P and (P implies Q) to get the assertion Q. But its the output *from* the KB that triggers the rule, not your query *to* it. If the KB had said 'no', the rule wouldn't have been triggered, right? 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 Wednesday, 19 September 2001 12:50:05 UTC