- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:15:48 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, las@olin.edu, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, mdean@bbn.com, lynn.stein@olin.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org, hendler@cs.umd.edu, connolly@w3.org
[...] > Unfortunately, as I have already indicated in several places, this approach > does not work, or, at best, only works with a lot of difficulty and > fiddling. To make it work correctly you have to include a full theory of > lists and other syntactic constructions in your theory. Once this is done, > semantic paradoxes, or, if you prefer, the ability to derive a > contradiction from the empty knowledge base, are very hard to avoid. > Even if the whole formalism does not fail, there are quite a number of > related issues that affect interpretations and inference. I'm trying to agree with you, and it is indeed a possible concern or, if you prefer, a challenge. We are currently looking into "a theory of con-sequents in the presence of inconsistencies" and I believe it could be engineered. Anyhow, for the case of lists, I would be very interested to see evidence for the problems that you mention, I mean a test case or so. Our current entailment rules are for all :x, :a, :b, :c ( :x / :b ) ont:item :x . { :b ont:item :x } log:implies { ( :a / :b) ont:item :x } . ( ( ) :x ) :append :x . { ( :a :b ) :append :c } log:implies { ( ( :x / :a ) :b ) :append ( :x / :c ) } . but we still think about the entailment rules for a :schemaInconsistency -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 12:19:15 UTC