Re: use cases: log:semantics, log:includes, log:notIncludes

From: Dan Connolly (
Date: 03/13/03

  • Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: Logic Layering Issues for DAML Rules"
    On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:54, Sandro Hawke wrote: 
    > here's a draft.   it's kind of weak on actual use-case, but maybe it's
    > enough of a start.   
    TimBL recently wrote a page on this sort of thing:
    Tutorial: Reaching out onto the Web
      Looking inside web resources: log:semantics and log:includes
      Implementing defaults and log:notIncludes
      Getting results from the web: log:definitiveService and
    >     -- sandro
    > --
    > 2.x Rules About Web Content
    > Documents available on the web can be important inputs into custom
    > reasoning involving rules.  Certain conclusions can be drawn when
    > the document retreived from some URI says certain things, does _not_
    > say certain things, is signed by a certain signature, was last
    > modified at a certain date, etc.  For example:
    >    * gives the official list of W3C publications
    >      and their normative status.  A form of this in RDF could be
    >      useful input to rules about whether a given document was
    >      normative.  This involves negatation-as-failure in an explicitely
    >      closed world: anything not listed on that page cannot be a W3C
    >      recommendation.
    This is not theoretical; it's working in practice.
    Hmm... it doesn't seem to use log:notIncludes though.
    It's supposed to, eventually.
    Dan Connolly, W3C

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/13/03 EST