- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 22:36:46 +0100
- To: "Sandro Hawke <sandro" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, www-tag-request@w3.org
[...]
> I keep mulling over other approaches here, like how to do this
> (log:semantics) in backward chaining, and how to graft it into a
> resolution theorem prover.
good point; using log:conjunction and log:semantics we can write
[ is log:conjunction of
( [ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-relations>
]
[ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-facts> ]
[ is log:semantics of <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl> ]
[ is log:semantics of <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema> ] ) ]
log:implies
[ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-query> ] .
but we actually kind of treat that as
( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-relations>^^log:semantics
<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-facts>^^log:semantics
<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl>^^log:semantics
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema>^^log:semantics )^^log:conjunction
log:implies
<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-query>^^log:semantics .
and then it is quite straightforward to have such a triple
in a rule premis or in a goal and do backward chaining
we have a testcase at http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/etc5
and its proof at http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/etc5-proof.n3
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 25 January 2003 16:37:35 UTC