From: pat hayes (phayes@ihmc.us)
Date: 11/04/03
>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. There seems to be little utility in having the consequent being a conjunction. I tend to think of the logical form of a rule as being a clause, so that the antecedent is a conjunction but the consequent is naturally a disjunction. Hence the appeal of Horn clauses, of course. >I'm not sure what we want to do about this. The floor is open... Remove the condition that a consequent is a conjunction. Its never a conjunction, except as syntactic sugar for a conjunction of rules each with a singleton-disjunction consequent. Pat >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 -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/04/03 EST