From: Jim Hendler (jhendler@darpa.mil)
Date: 06/06/01
>. > >On using a daml reasoner to find inconsistencies, I think this is a good >use, and in fact one that at least some of us would have intended. Jim >has consistently said that we should not expect all daml reasoners to be >complete thus one should not expect all daml reasoners to find all >logical inconsistencies. However one could choose a complete daml >reasoner to solve the problem if completeness is required. Also, if one >could be satisfied finding SOME of the inconsistencies, I would expect a >lot of reasoners to be able to find things that are say instances of two >disjoint partitions. Just to be clear - Jim has consistently said that we should not expect all DAML reasoners to be ?X forall ?x :-> Seriously, I agree that there is a role for consistent/closed world reasoners and proof checkers in some cases, I just want to make sure we don't end up with a system where you have to use them this way - remember my slogan at the kickoff meeting - on the web there is "no THE" -JH p.s. Above could also be my comment on the rules controversy -seems to me we're producing XORs rather than ORs - we should be building multiple proposals and then figuring out what we want to recommend out... Dr. James Hendler jhendler@darpa.mil Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone) 3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax) Arlington, VA 22203 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST