Re: A comment on DAML FAQ

From: Jim Hendler (
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"
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 

Dr. James Hendler
Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO	703-696-2238 (phone)
3701 N. Fairfax Dr.		703-696-2201 (Fax)
Arlington, VA 22203

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