Re: Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 4 November

From: pat hayes (
Date: 11/04/03

  • Next message: Sandro Hawke: "Re: technical detail feedback on OWL Rules: truth value for empty consequent"
    Suggestion, following Ben's reporting of Tim's observation. The ideas 
    that (1) an empty consequent is 'false' and (2) that a consequent is 
    a conjunction, are in opposition. The former arises historically from 
    thinking of a rule as an implication or a sequent, where a compound 
    consequent would be considered a disjunction.  I think this is a 
    fundamental snag in the current proposal ( sorry I didnt notice it 
    before) and suggest that we change the basic rule syntax slightly so 
    that consequents are atomic, not conjunctive, but then allow the 
    present case as a Lloyd-Topor style syntactic sugar for a conjunction 
    of rules. This changes the presentation slightly but makes it natural 
    for an empty consequent to be considered a missing atom - false - 
    rather than an empty conjunction - true. It also simplifies the 
    semantics, and makes the Lloyd-Topor mapping work properly in all 
    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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/04/03 EST