Re: rule proto-proposal

From: pat hayes (
Date: 05/29/01

>As promised (threatened), I have put together the beginnings of a proprosal
>for rules in DAML+OIL.  This is the very initial stages of a proposal, and
>has certainly not be analyzed to the extent that it should.

Peter shames me into putting my proposal into writing also. It is 
considerably larger in scope than his, so maybe we will eventually 

I would propose allowing rules of the form

A1 A2.... An -> C

where n>=0, ie Horn clauses, where the Ai and C are atoms. (Some 
atoms may only occur in antecent position, however.)

C may be empty, ie rules of the form
are allowed. An empty consequent is interpreted to be 'false', so 
this is in effect a negation, in the usual way.

An atom is an expression of one the following forms:

<subclassOf S T>
<subPropertyOf S T>
<sameClassAs S T>
<samePropertyAs S T>
<sameIndividualAs S T>
<disjointWith S T>
<differentIndividualFrom S T>
<complementOf S T>
<unionOf S L>
<disjointUnionOf S L>
<intersectionOf S L>
<oneOf S L>
<R S T>
<S T>
<rdf:value S T>
where R is a property name, S and T are terms, and L is either a 
variable or a list of terms. A term is either a class name, a 
datatype or a variable.
Expressions of the form
<rdf:value S T>
<unionOf S L>
<disjointUnionOf S L>
<intersectionOf S L>
<oneOf S L>
and <R S T> where R is a Datatype property, and any expression 
mentioning a datatype, are allowed only in antecedents.

I would also suggest that we allow simple equality statements, at 
least in the consequents, even though these are not currently in DAML.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST