From: Benjamin Grosof (bgrosof@mit.edu)
Date: 11/04/03
At 07:19 PM 11/4/2003 -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > 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. > >It needs to be a conjunction to get Horn expressivity using >existentials scoped inside the consequent, right? no that's not really the issue, it's much simpler -- just a choice of the syntactic convention for conjunction of atoms in the head. We mainly need to define the truth value of an empty head as false rather than true. The simplest way to define that would be to permit the head only to be either a single atom or empty, as Pat suggests. Or one could more permissively define it to be: a conjunction of one or more atoms, or empty (interpreted as false), which is basically what the mid-Oct. draft intended. An atom here could be a variable-ized OWL-DL complex class expression, in the extension to permit those. B > -- sandro ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/04/03 EST