technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent

From: Benjamin Grosof (bgrosof@MIT.EDU)
Date: 10/17/03

Next message: Benjamin Grosof: "DAML PI Meeting JC Rules Update -- Discussion materials: slides and summary notes of discussion"

Previous message: Benjamin Grosof: "Fwd: rules features feedback from Cycorp: OWL-Rules extension priorities"
Next in thread: pat hayes: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
Reply: pat hayes: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Hi folks,
TimBL pointed out today that if the rule consequent in OWL Rules is a 
conjunction of zero or more class atoms,
then when empty (i.e., zero case) it should logically be True, not False, 
since an empty conjunction is True.

I'm not sure what we want to do about this.  The floor is open...
Benjamin

________________________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Benjamin Grosof
Web Technologies for E-Commerce, Business Policies, E-Contracting, Rules, 
XML, Agents, Semantic Web Services
MIT Sloan School of Management, Information Technology group
http://ebusiness.mit.edu/bgrosof or http://www.mit.edu/~bgrosof

Next message: Benjamin Grosof: "DAML PI Meeting JC Rules Update -- Discussion materials: slides and summary notes of discussion"
Previous message: Benjamin Grosof: "Fwd: rules features feedback from Cycorp: OWL-Rules extension priorities"
Next in thread: pat hayes: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
Reply: pat hayes: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 10/17/03 EST