- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:47:31 +0100
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
PatH:
[fully agreed]
> The
> industrial uses of Prolog-style rules all are
> designed within controlled environments,
> typically using databases, where such special
> conditions can be assumed. But on the web, we
> can't assume that we are living in such a
> controlled environment. We need to make those
> critical assumptions explicit somehow if we are
> going to make rules that can survive in the real
> world.
For the test cases till now, we have been trying to
find that explicitness by not only showing the
conclusion, but by returning an explanation like
e.g.
{
(# list of explicitly assumed RDF formulae
<premise-uri1>.log:semantics
<premise-uri2>.log:semantics).log:conjunction
=>
<conclusion-uri>.log:semantics
}
reason:because
{
{# a recursive form of
{given-or-derived-grounded-facts} => {intermediate-conclusion}}
=>
{grounded-conclusion}.
# an iteration for other grounded-conclusions from conclusion-uri
}.
which is meant as an example of an RDF formula :)
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 08:49:37 UTC